Ruth Kelly: It is a pleasure to open this section of the debate on the Gracious Speech. At the heart of the Government's programme is action to create strong, stable and secure communities, and action to tackle terrorism. My Department has a role in both. We want to create communities in which there is economic opportunity, social justice and a strong sense of civic pride, communities in which people come together to make a difference to their own and other people's lives, and communities in which people feel secure and able to stand up for our shared values—rights combined with responsibilities.
	In 1997 we inherited a legacy of run-down public services starved of cash, and a demoralised local government drained of resources. The Leader of the Opposition confessed this summer:
	"it is true to say that the last Conservative Government was not always kind to local democracy".
	We on this side of the House agree with him. In their last four years, the Tory Government presided over a 7 per cent. real-terms cut in local services. Since 1997 we have increased spending by almost 40 per cent. in real terms. That investment, together with a strong national direction and the hard work of local authorities, has brought about real improvements in the quality of local public services.
	The challenge now is to give local people more control over their lives and to make local services more responsive to local needs. Last month, I published a local government White Paper setting out our proposals for the next phase of reform. People have the right to a decent neighbourhood. When they see graffiti on walls or drug dealers hanging around on their street corners, they need to know that they can get something done. We are thus strengthening the ability of local people, through their local councillors, to hold to account those who deliver local services. At that time, I also set out measures to ensure that all communities benefited from strong, accountable and visible leadership.
	We will introduce a Bill in the coming Session to give effect to those proposals. Even the Tory chair of the Local Government Association has described that Bill as taking
	"significant steps on local leadership, deregulation and cutting red tape".
	I hope that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and her Front-Bench colleagues will take the opportunity to welcome the proposals, which she signally failed to do when we debated them last month, and that she will back the Bill on Second Reading.
	We want our cities to compete with the best in the world and to be good places in which to do business, live, work and travel. We are working with our towns and cities to support economic development, to strengthen public services and to improve the quality of public spaces. I pay tribute to Ken Livingstone for having the courage to take the tough decisions needed to maintain London as a world-class city. Building on the success of devolution in London, we will introduce a Bill to strengthen the powers of the Mayor and the assembly. Is the hon. Member for Meriden any clearer about whether she will support the Greater London authority Bill during its passage through the Commons? But perhaps I should not expect too much, given that the Tories do not yet have a candidate for Mayor. As Tony Travers of the London School of Economics pointed out recently, it is not easy for the Tories. They need a candidate who is
	"Populist, capable of giving as good as they get and willing to mix it—not many leading Conservatives fit that description".

Ruth Kelly: I do. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We should listen not only to established voices in our local communities but to people whose voices have not traditionally been heard in this debate—the voices of women and young people in particular, and of the grass-roots organisations that play a genuine role in rooting out extremism and promoting our shared values as a society, spreading and enhancing economic and social justice. Last week the director general of the Security Service, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, outlined the scale of the terrorist threat—some 200 groupings or networks with a total of more than 1,600 identified individuals who are actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here or overseas—so my hon. Friend is right to say that we should take action. Let no one tell us that those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam represent the vast majority of decent, law-abiding Muslims in this country. Isolating extremists is a shared problem: the Government should step up their work, all faith groups should stand up for core shared value, and Muslim leaders should actively condemn extremism. As a Government we will work in partnership with organisations that take a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values.

Andrew Smith: I have just devoted quite some time to explaining—logically and persuasively, I thought—why that is not the case. Of course a judgment has to be made, and commentators, experts, the committee advising the Government and this House will make that judgment; it will be the stuff of the public debate on this important issue.
	The need to combat climate change presents enormous opportunities, as well as challenges. In this country, there is terrific concern for the environment; that is the case not only among my constituents, who are assiduous in sending letters and e-mails making the case for action to me and to the Secretary of State, but across the United Kingdom. I always remember Tam Dalyell telling a Labour party conference debate on the environment that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had more members than the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat parties put together. We also only have to look at how people take to recycling; they do so not because the Government tell them that it is a good thing, but because they know from their own values that wanton waste—of, for example, so much plastic and glass, with all the energy and resources that go into making them—is a bad thing. Most people care about their local environment, and about the planet, too: they care about poor people in poor countries; they care about the world's ecosystems and flora and fauna; and they are distressed that human activity could drown whole coastal regions, condemn millions to drought and destroy wonderful animal species. Therefore, there is an opportunity to tap into, and mobilise, people's genuine concern for their planet, and to show how the action that we can take together can make a real difference.
	However, anyone who is serious about tackling the threat of climate change must also address the political challenges. There is a danger that the measures taken get seen as the conspiracy of a class, and a political elite, to pull up the ladder after the better-off have climbed it; that was, I think, Crosland's prescient worry about environmentalism. That danger is greater when the main parties are in broad agreement about the overall direction of travel. Last week, I was at a meeting where someone pointed out that, after the publication of the Stern report, he looked at the BBC website and found that the comments calling for action to save the planet were greatly outnumbered by those of people who were worried that this could all be just a ruse to squeeze more tax out of them. In the press, the contrast between the reactions of the broadsheets and the tabloids told the same story.
	A number of important implications follow from that. The measures taken must be seen to be fair: only a progressive political strategy will maintain a public consensus in support of the measures needed to tackle climate change. Flat-rate taxes and duties should be used cautiously and with overall fiscal neutrality, and we should examine carefully at every turn the impact of proposals of those on low and modest incomes, and mitigate adverse effects. We should also be wary of arguments in favour of taxing bad things to pay for good ones, because people are intuitively suspicious of arguments such as, "We are implementing this tax to change behaviour, but the money will still somehow magically be there when the behaviour has changed," and because they will lead many to suspect that the real motive for the tax is not stopping the bad things, but funding what politicians think are the good things.
	We should invest heavily in measures that help people on low incomes to cut their fuel costs—as this Government have been doing—extending further and accelerating cheap or free home insulation schemes, as well as more generally raising energy conservation standards in buildings. We should make it easier for people to make their own personal contribution to tackling climate change—for example by ensuring much clearer labelling on, and explanation of, the equivalent energy-saving light bulbs, so that they know which bulbs to choose. We should have either a ban on wasteful bulbs or a tax incentive to buy energy-efficient ones.

Elliot Morley: I want to focus on the climate change Bill, but it is appropriate to say a few words about the communities and local government legislation, because there are some important overlaps. I welcome some aspects, such as giving the Mayor of London more powers, which is important. For example, there is incoherence in London in relation to such things as the waste collection authorities and the waste disposal authorities. There is a role for the Mayor to have a much more co-ordinated approach. The Mayor has shown some really good leadership in trying to promote low-carbon economies and houses in London. That is a good example of what local government can do. It has been reflected in local councils across the country. The Nottingham declaration on climate change has been signed by a great many local councils, of all political control, across the country.
	I would like to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department for Communities and Local Government that, among my locally elected representatives, there is sometimes a view that the Government judge local councils on the criteria of the worst. There are some good examples of what local councils do across the country. Where local councils are performing well, they should be given not just support, but additional responsibilities and powers. The Bill goes some way towards that. I welcome that, because it is important.
	I want to focus on climate change. First, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on securing the parliamentary time to bring the Bill forward and on getting it in included in the Queen's Speech. I know how difficult that is, with all the conflicting demands and priorities. It demonstrates real commitment from the Government to tackling climate change and taking these issues forward. However, I also hope that he is successful in bringing forward a marine Bill, even if it is only in draft form. That would enable us to start the discussion on that Bill. I know that the fact that Bills are not included in the Queen's Speech does not necessarily mean that they will not be introduced, so I still think that there is an opportunity for the Bill. I want to put on record my support for that. I know that a great many organisations warmly welcome the idea of a marine Bill and look forward to its introduction.
	On Kyoto, the Government have a record that they can be proud of in terms of what has been done. I must correct the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) about the Kyoto targets. The Government have already met their Kyoto target and are projected to more than double their Kyoto target to about 23 per cent. by 2010. The hon. Gentleman might have been mixing up that target and the Government's domestic target on carbon dioxide.
	On that domestic target, it is projected that the UK will be about 16.5 per cent. below its 1990 CO2 levels by 2010. The manifesto commitment was a figure of 20 per cent.—Labour was the only party to make such a commitment—and I still hope that there is every chance that we can achieve that target. Changes in the energy sector will make a big difference, and we still need to concentrate on the matter. However, our record is better than that of any other industrial country, although I am not saying that it is enough—I do not think that it is. The climate change Bill will allow us to focus on what the Government and the country need to do so that we do not just meet our Kyoto targets.
	In the end, the Kyoto targets were agreed through horse-trading. They were based not on any kind of scientific assessment, but on negotiations. It is a tragedy that many countries have come nowhere near meeting their Kyoto targets. The US and Canada are about 30 per cent. above their 1990 levels, although an active debate is taking place in Canada about the measures that are needed to get things back on track. There is also enormous bottom-up pressure for action in the US. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is in the Chamber, is a notable member of the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment—GLOBE. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has acknowledged the work of GLOBE, which is made up of members of all parties. The cross-party group is engaging with legislators from the G8 plus 5 countries to try to move the debate forward. The debate is moving forward in countries such as the US. The results of the recent mid-term elections provide an opportunity for change, so I hope that we will be able to capitalise on them in a conference that GLOBE is organising in February. The conference will be addressed by Sir Nicholas Stern, among others, and I look forward to it.
	The Kyoto process itself is moving at a snail's pace. I am afraid that the outcome of the Nairobi conference was sadly predictable. There is no real agreement or focus. There will be a real risk of failure with the UN process unless there is a step change in action and some countries take on more responsibility for their actions. For example, it is incredible that Saudi Arabia is part of the G77 group. The country is richer and has a bigger gross domestic product than many members of the European Union, so it should be an annexe 1 country. It certainly should not be arguing that because taking action to reduce hydrocarbons will affect its economy, it should receive compensation. The country should be investing its wealth in alternative technologies and it is well placed to do so.
	I welcome the establishment of the carbon committee, which will provide independent assessments and will work with the Government to give independent advice. In reality, reporting has always been independent because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had to report to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. In addition, independent consultants carried have out an analysis on each year's emissions. However, the process should be made more open and transparent. It should be seen as independent, so I welcome the step forward in the climate change Bill. Several hon. Members and organisations have called for such a measure. The Bill itself has received a warm welcome from non-governmental organisations, which should take a great deal of credit for the way in which they have mobilised public opinion. The Stop Climate Chaos coalition, especially, has been extremely successful.
	There will be—and should be—a debate about targets. However, we should not get ourselves so wrapped up in, and focused on, a specific target that we lose sight of outcomes. Outcomes are important, rather than a particular target. I welcome the enabling powers in the Bill that will help to achieve those outcomes. Such powers are essential because they will be needed across the whole economy. The Bill will have to create a step change in the way in which we consider fiscal measures, taxation, transport policy, planning and regulation. We must take a holistic approach, and every Department should play its part. We must use every lever at our disposal to reduce emissions, because the challenge is great, and we need to take industry with us.
	We must make the case that there are real opportunities, and not only costs. Although there are costs involved, as the Stern report rightly pointed out, it also highlighted the fact that more costs will result from not taking action than will from taking action. That is a powerful message for our economy, the Government and other Governments around the world. I am pleased that notice has been taken of that, and that the arguments, which were put well, are of the quality that we would expect from Sir Nicholas Stern.
	There is an argument for targets, but we must think about what they should be. The overall target recommended by the United Nations climate change conference is a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050. That is to be made statutory, which is welcome. That may have to be reviewed, because given the way things are going, it may not be enough. We need interim approaches, too, so that we can measure our progress. Annual targets, and deciding the level of such targets, are quite difficult. I can tell that it must be a difficult subject of debate within the Conservative party, because it has talked about rolling targets and annual rolling targets—I am not clear about what an annual rolling target is, as a matter of fact, but the phrase was on its website, which is curious. There is probably not much between our parties on the reality of trying to apply such measures in a practical way.

Paul Beresford: I apologise for the fact that I will not be able to hear the Front Benchers sum up the debate. I will read the report tomorrow.
	It is interesting to follow the "split" speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). I shall focus on the first part—the environmental part. I agree with the hon. Lady that there are simple things that we can do. The look on the face of the man who came to read the meter when, several years ago, I rewired my property and installed low-cost lighting was second only to the delight on my own face when I received a dramatically reduced bill. It can be done, easily and inexpensively.
	You missed an interesting speech from the Secretary of State, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was a trip around the rose garden in which the Secretary of State looked at all the rosebuds but ignored the greenfly and the thorns. I thought I might touch on one or two of the thorns, but let me first mention one of the buds. The Secretary of State and the Government are going to reduce the number of targets considerably; at least, that is how it looks on paper. Such action constitutes a dramatic about-turn for local government, which over the past few years has been loaded with targets and Bills such as the "best value" Bill—a misnomer if there ever was one—that restricted and handcuffed it. They were followed by the comparative performance assessment, by a myriad targets, and by books and books of prescriptive guidance.
	Of course, the Secretary of State's Department, in its previous guise, was not alone. All the other Departments piled in to shackle local government, or nail it to the floor. There was also the problem of the way in which the grant was redistributed and re-thought out three times, mostly to move money to northern urban areas.
	We have heard before from Government that they will cut the number of targets and cut bureaucracy. What usually happens is that they take away some of the targets with one hand—we have heard talk of a reduction from 1,000 to 200—but put them back with the other. As I said in an intervention, although this Department—as part of an unjoined-up Government—is taking some of the load from local government, the others continue to pile it on.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will give some thought to the fact that even in her Department there are examples of increased bureaucracy that she ought to be tackling. The new local area agreements are hyped as a new way of streamlining funding and reporting, but as far as I can see they involve an excessively bureaucratic and time-consuming performance. There are hundreds of pages of prescriptive guidance on process, format and the local public service agreements that local authorities must follow. There is minute scrutiny by Government offices, under policy directions that come straight down from central Government. There are mandatory indicators—with continued emphasis on national priorities and indicators effectively removing the so-called local aspects—six-monthly review meetings, and so on.
	At the same time, local government must look over its shoulder at grossly expensive, non-elected, unwanted, interfering regional government. It is worse in London, which has a Mayor, and below him—if my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will allow me to say so—a talking shop, the London Assembly. It has no power to do anything. It can watch the Mayor, it can talk about the Mayor, but it has little or no real power to have any effect on the Mayor.
	The Government say that the London Mayor is to have new powers to interfere in the running of London's strong unitary authorities. Perhaps the worst will be his new wider planning powers. Local people in London boroughs vote for local councillors on local issues, of which planning is one of the main ones. Soon, unless the Secretary of State wakes up, the London Mayor will be able to ride roughshod over local planning decisions to an even greater degree than he does at the moment.
	The Mayor is supposed to interfere only in planning issues "of strategic importance", but he alone interprets what is of strategic importance. The whole process will take longer, as will the challenging of any decision. It will slow down even more planning programmes and planning development. There will be furious arguments between the two teams, yet there is no arbitration process. Even if the Mayor takes over a planning application, he will require the local borough to handle the application and, of course, to pay for it. This particular Mayor has a history of trying to get involved in major applications merely to squeeze section 106 money out of developers as a price for his agreement.
	That brings me to one aspect of the proposed planning Bill. The Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions recently looked at the proposed planning gain supplement. It is a new name for an old tax on development. There have been four attempts by previous Governments to tax in that way: the 1947 development charge, the 1967 betterment levy, the 1973 development gains tax and the 1976 development land tax. They all failed.
	We have, as the Select Committee has pointed out consistently, an opportunity to look at the 106 agreement process that is already there. Many local authorities make that work very successfully. It is agreed locally, it is collected locally and it is utilised locally. It has some problems in some areas, but a renovation of the 106 agreement process would be a much more sensible way of proceeding. Instead, we will have a tax that is centrally collected, at a rate set centrally, and distributed centrally. Anyone in local government with any knowledge of how this Government have worked over the past few years will cynically point to the Government's central collection of locally achieved capital receipts and their redistribution, and to the three engineered changes in revenue grant support.
	The planning gain supplement is a not so stealthy tax. Its aim is to increase public taxation on developers in excess of that already collected through 106 agreements. It is to apply to virtually every development, from major to minor, and it will not help to progress development.
	I have just touched quickly on a few items in the Queen's Speech, each of which, bar the one or two rosebuds, will ultimately further shackle local councils. Our local authorities may still be local but they are less and less government under this national Government.

Barry Sheerman: It is a pleasure to be called in a debate with such high-quality contributions. I listened with rapt attention to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who got the balance between two distinct parts of the Queen's Speech eloquently and passionately right. I was also impressed by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), except for one small part, which I will come to later.
	This, like all Queen's Speeches, is, I hope, driven by the people we represent. Otherwise, why is the Queen making such a speech? My experience in the House suggests that this place goes wrong when we cease to listen to what is happening outside, to what people are feeling, to what they care about and to what they are prioritising.
	In 1989, after the Green party got nearly 15 per cent. of the vote in the European election, suddenly, every political leader said, "We would never have a party elected in this country that did not prioritise the environment as the No. 1 issue." Over the years, we have all seen both public prioritisation and political prioritisation of the environment fade away. Three years ago, I spoke to the most senior member of the Government, urging him to give greater priority to the environment. Interestingly, even three years ago, I could not convince him but, during those three years, there has been an amazing turnaround in consciousness about the importance of the environment. Things have changed.
	The Queen's Speech is welcome. I received 350 cards urging a climate change Bill and I am pleased that many of my constituents will be happy that there is to be one. However, it must be the right climate change Bill, and it is a shame that we did not have a marine Bill as well.
	Before I talk in depth about the environment, let me point out that I had lost my voice last Thursday, so I could not speak in the education day of the Queen's Speech debate. We have the wonderful tradition of being able to speak about anything in the Queen's Speech and I wish to say what was left out. There was talk of sustainable and viable communities, but let us look at what has happened in my constituency. It is a pretty average constituency—Huddersfield is fairly representative of the rest of the country—and, during the time that I have represented it, I have been able to see how many well-paid manufacturing jobs have gone, to be replaced by very low-paid jobs in retailing and distribution. That sometimes makes me wonder: Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and the other major supermarkets make enormous profits, as do other service sector companies, but I go into their stores and the people who run them and give tremendous service seem to be paid very little. There is something strange about a sustainable community in which we have a large and increasing number of people who are expected to live on not much more than the minimum wage. I shall return to supermarkets and the environment.
	Something else missing from the Queen's Speech debate is sufficient emphasis on housing. I intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to point that out. That is not only the responsibility of the Government, because the financial sector has also been irresponsible, by, for instance, selling people mortgages on five times their average earnings. As we all know, people can self-authenticate their salary for a long time. That bodes ill for the future and, if there is a downturn in the housing market and a hike in interest rates, it bodes ill for people's ability to maintain themselves in their accommodation, while helping to continue to fuel the rise in house prices.
	House prices in Huddersfield have increased by about 100 per cent. in three years. That means that the first-time buyer, who used to be able to take their first step on the property ladder by buying a little back-to-back house or a conversion, can no longer do so. Now, we in my local authority of Kirklees have 10,000 people on what is an authentic waiting list. That especially impinges on younger people. In some parts of the country, that ladder does not exist, and I would have liked some attention to have been paid to that in the Queen's Speech.
	Prisons is another matter that worried me when I read the Queen's Speech. I was the shadow Minister for prisons for the four years up to 1992, so I got to know the police and prison services fairly well, and one lesson I learned is that we cannot change criminality in our society by building prisons. That has been tried in the United States and it has never worked. We can keep on building prisons until an enormous percentage of the population are in prison, as in the United States, but that will not address the cause of the problem. We need much more focus on rehabilitation. About nine months ago, my Committee—the Education and Skills Committee—published a report on prison education. When prisons are as full as they currently are, there is a decline in what can be done to rehabilitate prisoners. There is something very wrong with the prison estate, and if that is considered in parallel with the undermining of the probation service, that is wrong. That should have been addressed, and I hope that it might be addressed as the Queen's Speech progresses through the Commons and the Lords. It is not right to undermine a profession that meets all its targets and has a real reputation for delivering, despite scant resources and the backdrop of the National Offender Management Service reforms over several years that have destabilised the entire prison estate.
	As the Member for Huddersfield, it would be dishonest of me to ignore immigration. There is a lot of populism associated with immigration and many dangers inherent in talking about it. My constituents are pretty fair-minded; indeed, we live in a fair and balanced society in which all the communities and faiths work and live together and get on extremely well. I have heard of no one in my constituency who does not want an effective, speedy and fair immigration system, but we do not have such a system. There are lost souls living in my constituency who cannot work or sustain life. They should have been given a decision and sent back whence they came a long time ago, rather than being tortured by long delays. There should be a guaranteed period within which all immigration cases are decided.
	We must also have an immigration system in which the cheats do not prosper. In the household in which I was brought up, one of my mother's favourite watchwords was, "Cheats never prosper." Those who believe that should not look at immigration, because there, too many cheats do prosper. I have honest constituents waiting to be reunited with members of their family—waiting for a legitimate decision on a particular immigration question—who see people who abuse the system and jump ahead of them. That causes great discontent and unhappiness.
	Returning to my education and skills brief, in looking at our immigration system, I wonder how many more unskilled people we need in this country. Yes, we need skilled people, but bearing in mind the complexion of my constituency and of our society, I am not sure how many unskilled people we need. A balance should be struck in terms of prioritising the skills of those who migrate to this country.
	Turning to the subject that I normally focus on, I hope that there will not be as many surprises in the education element of this Queen's Speech as there were in the last one. What looked like a fairly innocuous Bill gave me an enormous amount of work over the ensuing months, but we eventually put to bed a much improved Education and Inspections Bill that has now received Royal Assent. The further education Bill in this Queen's Speech is an interesting one. I hope that its progress through this House will be influenced by my Select Committee's recent report on the FE sector, and by our observation that a balance needs to be struck between the driver of "train to gain"—of training for a particular job—and remembering our responsibility to community education. That will be very important as we face the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford referred to: how to teach people about the environment and make them understand that they can make real changes in their lives that will make a real difference as we try to meet the climate change challenge.
	In meeting the climate change challenge, too much emphasis is put on international Governments, rather than on what we as individuals can do. As I said in a speech to a school the other day, it is about the individual as well: it is about changing ingrained habits that will not be easy to change. I said, "Are you going to give up eating so much fish? We in this country eat a lot of fish—indeed, there is a fish and chip shop on almost every street corner. Are you going to give up your cheap holidays in Spain?" We went through a catalogue of such issues. Unfortunately—this was the day after the Stern report—I also said, "Are you going to give up your bonfires on bonfire night?" Of course, I have now become known in the House as "Bonfire Barry", but this is a serious point. I would still like to know why the person at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who was telephoned about this issue said that bonfire night had a negligible impact on emissions, given that the National Society for Clean Air tells me that 14 per cent. of all dioxins are released into the air on or around 5 November. There is a lesson to be learned there.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important announcement on education, and it is always pleasant to hear an announcement on an issue on which one has been campaigning for years. It is a disgrace that anyone under 18 should leave school and enter work or unemployment without training. It is our duty to our children—and all those under 18 are still children, despite the Liberal Democrats' wishes—to refuse to countenance them starting work with no training at 16 or to become unemployed at that age. Every child should be in training, a job with training or education. My right hon. Friend recently made a speech about that, but the Queen's Speech contained nothing about the delivery of it.
	I finish by returning to the important issue of climate change. It will be delivered only by individuals making sacrifices. We should not kid ourselves that it will not be painful. It will not happen without some pain, and that may mean taxation. If the rumours are right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wrote to the Chancellor saying that we may have to raise taxes to pay for tackling climate change, I welcome that. As I say, we may have to give up things that we like and make sacrifices in terms of heating our homes and so on. Other possible changes have been mentioned today.
	Queen's Speeches are marvellous. They give us a sense of direction for the rest of the Session. We hope that we end up with well-written laws and decent pieces of legislation because we have improved them, but laws also have to be administered. Sometimes, Ministers change jobs so fast—especially in education and environment, two of the areas that I hold dear—that they have moved on by the time they get a grip on the subject. That is not good for government or for any of the big issues that we face. There is also churn in senior and middle ranking civil servants, who are moved on—it is called continuous professional development—soon after they get to know the job.
	Not many people in my constituency deal with £50 notes often, but this year Adam Smith will appear on them. His philosophy suggested that the benign effect of everyone pursuing their own selfish interests would add up to the greater good, but that will not work for climate change, which will need national, international and individual co-operation to achieve.

Charles Hendry: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) who gave an expert speech on a range of issues. He reflected the quality of the speeches in this debate and I associate myself particularly with his comments on prison reform and rehabilitation.
	As shadow Minister for young people, I went round many young offender institutions. I do not understand how we can expect a young person who is put in a 9 ft by 5 ft cell with someone else for 18 hours a day, with little access to education or reading and no chance to better themselves or learn a skill, to come out a better person. There is a disjuncture between punishment, which is a necessary part of the system, and rehabilitation, which is equally important.
	We also need to address mental health issues in our prisons. It is a scandal that so little is done on the matter. That was highlighted last year by the inquest on Zahid Mubarek's death in Feltham and the case in my constituency of Daniel Meehan, a young man who committed suicide at the age of 29 after failing to receive the right mental health support in prison, which he was entitled to expect.
	I hope that the Mental Health Bill can be adapted to look at the mental health needs of people in our prisons.
	Turning to the issues confronting us today, there was a remarkable contrast between the speeches from the Front Benches. From the Secretary of State there was a sense of tiredness, of boredom perhaps, that this was another Queen's Speech and there was not a huge amount to say. She did not seem to have a great deal of enthusiasm for her subject or indeed a sense of direction. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) gave us a sense of direction and an understanding of the issues involved and the urgency of dealing with them.
	Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome the climate change Bill but, as with so many such things, the devil will be in the detail. In just a year, there has been a huge change. A year ago, we were still debating whether action was necessary and whether there genuinely was climate change; now the whole debate is about what we can do to make changes more quickly so that we stop climate change happening at all.
	I am not sure how much we can achieve by voluntary agreement. If things are left to the good will of property developers and the builders of new housing, it is doubtful that the necessary changes will happen in time. We have to recognise that new build is only 1 per cent. of the housing stock and if we truly want change much more needs to be done through building regulations to bring existing housing stock into line over time so that it, too, can make a contribution.
	There are unique opportunities for the United Kingdom and its businesses. My constituency of Wealden in Sussex was a significant farming area, but farming has almost died out in the south-east and in areas such as Sussex; the value of land and farmhouses has gone up so much that people can no longer afford to buy them as farms. There are tremendous opportunities for farming to make a comeback in areas such as Sussex through growing biomass, but that will happen only if there is a structure that encourages investment in biomass activity. The cornerstone of that will be to put a price on carbon, to cap carbon emissions each year and to require people to buy certificates if they emit carbon during the generation of electricity. Over time, that will make it more attractive to invest in other forms of renewable electricity and generation.
	At the same time, we must remove some of the absurdities in the system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in his extraordinarily impressive contribution, spoke about aviation. As a north-west MP, he is a regular user of Virgin trains, which are powered by red diesel taxed at 6p a litre, yet if biomass, which is taxed at 47p, were added to the diesel, not only it but the red diesel would be taxed at 47p a litre. We have an absurd system in which the moment that people try to do the right thing environmentally, they have to pay a higher cost.
	We wanted other issues to be addressed in the Queen's Speech, but they are not covered by the Bills proposed so far. I welcome comments about devolving power to local government, but we are sceptical about how what is possibly the most centralising Government ever run things. Regional assemblies are a case in point: all the powers for the regional assemblies were taken away from district and county councils, rather than genuinely devolved from central Government.
	I hope that we shall not go down the route of further reorganisation, which would be massively expensive: £3.5 billion that could be spent on local services would instead be spent on reorganisation itself. Above all, reorganisation is unloved and unwanted. It would mean getting rid of a genuinely popular tier of local government—either the county councils or the district councils—to give more power to regional assemblies. There is no demand whatever for that in our communities. The Government failed to get through their referendum in the north-east, which may be the only area in the country where there might have been popular support. In the end, there was massive feeling against that degree of change. Having failed to achieve that through democratic means, there is now a desire to try to push it through in legislation instead.
	We in the south-east do not have that sense of regional identity that the Government wish to believe that we have. In the Government's mind, the south-east spreads from Dover to Portsmouth, to the outskirts of Cheltenham and the fringes of Oxfordshire and up to Milton Keynes. No one in my constituency in East Sussex believes that someone in Oxfordshire or Buckinghamshire lives in the same region. It is an artificially created structure, and we should be considering abolishing it, rather than seeking to give it more powers.
	Nothing gave greater clarity to the division of approaches between those on the two Front Benches than the issue of infrastructure and development. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government does not seem to recognise that the extent of overdevelopment that is proposed is causing a massive infrastructure deficit. Indeed, it is estimated that, to bring the infrastructure of the south-east up to the level required for the number of proposed houses will cost £45 billion—£1 billion for every local authority. Clearly, when put across the whole nation, the figure becomes astronomical.
	In March 2006, the South East England Regional Assembly proposed that 28,900 new houses should be built in the south-east annually. The Government are considering a figure that may be 60 per cent. higher, but the infrastructure investment is absolutely woeful. Set against the deficit of £45 billion, the Government's plans for the infrastructure in London and the south-east amount to just £295 million. Things will get worse if section 106 agreements are replaced by a planning gains supplement, which will become yet another aspect of the Government taking funds away from the south-east and redistributing them to other parts of the country.
	The Government should require, through legislation, an infrastructure audit to be carried out on all significant new developments, so that we can ensure that the implications for the infrastructure will be met. We find great anger in our constituencies not just about the sheer number of houses that are proposed, but about the fact that the infrastructure will not exist by the time that the houses are built. When the houses are built, people will say, "Where will the children go to school? Where will people find a dentist? How will they get the water to come out of the taps?" Unless we consider the infrastructure first and foremost, we will end up with a massive imbalance.
	We must therefore consider a number of different aspects, the first of which is health. It is estimated that a further 1,300 acute hospital beds and 600 general hospital beds are needed in the south-east over the next 20 years to cover new housing growth, but what are we seeing? At the three hospitals that serve my constituency—the Kent and Sussex in Tunbridge Wells, the Princess Royal in Haywards Heath and Eastbourne district general hospital—there is a massive question mark over the future of their accident and emergency units and maternity services. We are seeing the greatest ever threat to hospital provision in the south-east. We should be considering what new investment is required to ensure that those who live in the new homes that will be imposed on us have the required health care provision.
	For the past 18 months, there has been a hosepipe ban in my constituency, which may be lifted this winter—after the rain over the weekend, it should be lifted pretty soon—but we cannot provide the amount of water that our existing homes already use. If hundreds and hundreds of new homes are built every year, those problems will become even worse. The great irony is that the people who do not want those new houses to be built will be the ones who have to pay for the investment in the water system to supply them with water, even though that will take many decades to carry out.
	Flooding links closely with water supply. We have heard reference already in the debate to the number of houses that are planned to be built on floodplains. The Environment Agency says that 34,000 of the new houses planned will be built on floodplains. Some 30 per cent. of the houses planned for the south-east will need to be built on them. Almost exactly six years ago, Uckfield in my constituency experienced a terrible flood, yet six years later, we have not seen one penny piece spent by the Government on flood defences to stop it happening again. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), pledged that things would be done and the Prime Minister had a reception in Downing street to tell local authority leaders that he would personally ensure that flood defences would be put in place. Six years on, as I say, nothing has been done. If we are continuing to build on floodplains, it is ridiculous that steps are not first taken to prevent flooding from happening as it has in the past.
	We should also consider further investment in our transport infrastructure. Road traffic is expected to increase in the south-east by 25 per cent. between 2000 and 2010. In East Sussex, we have not a single motorway and only eight miles of dual carriageway, so if the Government impose the expected volume of housing on the area, it will lead to massive pressure on our already overburdened roads. More importantly, it will lead to massive pressure on some of the most environmentally special parts of this country. The areas of outstanding natural beauty of Ashdown forest, High Weald and the south downs surely need to be preserved as special places for our children—and subsequently for their children, grandchildren and beyond—but if too little attention is paid to the infrastructure, it will be difficult to invest in those areas.
	As a result of massively improved rail services provided by Southern, we have seen a significant increase in rail traffic in the south-east, but we are already seeing huge overcrowding. Without further investment in the railway lines and rolling stock, that situation will simply get worse.
	There is a very clear message in all this: the south-east is expected to take all the pain of the new housing, but not to get any of the gain of investment in the infrastructure. The Government should therefore introduce an infrastructure audit Bill to assess the needs for health provision, water, sewerage and flood prevention and to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in our schools and in our road and rail services. We face a massive imbalance and the measures proposed in the Queen's Speech will not address it adequately. I hope that the Minister will take that into account and examine what can be done to ensure that, if we must have the housing growth that he plans to force on us, the infrastructure will be in place to support it.

Bob Russell: I wish to speak about the aspects of the Queen's Speech relating to climate change and local government. I have some knowledge of local government in Essex and I suspect that my experiences are similar to those throughout the rest of the country.
	The population of Essex is greater than that of some European Union member states, but in terms of its local government, the county council is increasingly sucking up powers to the county hall in Chelmsford from the districts and boroughs of the county. The historical county has been dismembered on several occasions over the past 100 years or so. We now have what was left after metropolitan Essex went into London and Southend and Thurrock got unitary status, which happened more recently. However, one only needs to read last week's  LGC Local Government Chronicle to find out Essex county council's agenda: to take as many powers as possible for county hall and, in effect, to make local councils, districts and boroughs little more than branch offices.
	The county council happens to be Conservative controlled, but most of the districts and boroughs in Essex are also Conservative controlled, so this is not a party political matter, but rather a case of the county council wanting to run everything. In the past year or so, it has taken back all highways matters. Even potholes and street lights are thus no longer dealt with locally. In the case of Colchester, they are dealt with 35 miles away in Chelmsford. The article in  LGC Local Government Chronicle that included a quote by the leader of Essex county council made it clear that that was just the start.
	As far as my town is concerned, the county council has announced the closure of the local adult education centre at Grey Friars. It is kicking the Stepping Stones special needs children's nursery out of the Wilson Marriage community centre and shutting the purpose-built Colchester branch of the Essex records office, which opened only 20 years ago. That is happening in Britain's oldest recorded town. I thus listened with great interest to the official Conservative Front-Bench view on localism. I supported much of what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, but then I related it to what was happening with Essex county council.

Bob Russell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in one sense, but that could be more an excuse for a county council to grab local powers. However, he makes a valid point.
	I simply feel that the affairs of my town are best looked after by locally-elected borough councillors, not county councillors in Chelmsford, most of whom have no direct knowledge of Colchester. The only thing that unites the county of Essex is not the county council—as I said, it has been dismembered anyway—but the BBC Essex radio station and Essex county cricket club, when it is doing well. They unify Essex, not the make-believe county council.
	I agreed with many points made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) about the lack of accountability and democratic control of increasing numbers of quangos and arm's length bodies. The hon. Gentleman did not mention local strategic partnerships, which are even less accountable than quangos. The Government need to address the situation. Answers received to parliamentary questions in the past Session made it clear that members of local strategic partnerships are not governed by the same rules of engagement as democratically-elected councillors. I have personal knowledge of cases in which confidential information is being shared with members of a local strategic partnership—perhaps not all members, but certainly one or more—before local, democratically elected councillors hear about it, and that is of grave concern. The Government need to address the issue of where they are going with local government and democratic accountability. Essex county council has ceased to be relevant and it ought to be abolished. There should be unitary authorities in those parts of Essex where that would make sense—and if it makes sense for Southend, it makes sense for other places.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As far as capping and trading are concerned, the UK can do certain things—an example would be landfill capping and trading—but aviation and most other major causes of carbon dioxide emissions are certainly examples of where the trading needs to take place on a wider basis than just within this country. Phase two of the EU emissions trading scheme will be crucial for getting those mechanisms right, as will be phase three. There are also signs that some states in the USA wish to sign up to these carbon trading mechanisms. I would hope that such mechanisms can be established world wide, but they must certainly be established on a Europe-wide level. Perhaps the European Commission could set the allocations for each country during phase three of the ETS, rather than our having the self-certification of allocations that occurred during phase one.
	The clauses that will provide enabling powers for those further mechanisms will form an important part of the new Bill. I hope that some of those enabling powers will encourage energy companies to become energy service companies, so that they are able to sell us as little energy as possible and to make their living by sharing the proceeds of energy saving, rather than by selling us as much energy as possible. If the Bill achieves the establishment of those enabling devices, it will be a very good Bill indeed.
	The idea that we should examine the sustainability of Government decisions across the board sheds light on a number of the other Bills in the Queen's Speech, especially the local government Bill. Will local government be given far greater discretion to take action on climate change, guided by what it recognises as local concerns? Although these are global issues, most of the action that needs to be taken will take place at local level. I disagree with the hon. Member for Meriden and, I assume, the rest of the Conservative Front Bench, in their characterisation of variable charging for waste as a policy that would penalise certain households. Perhaps, rather than being called "variable charging for waste", it should be called "variable reward for recycling", because that is how it should be characterised. The idea that local authorities should have the discretion to introduce such devices to push down the levels of waste in a sustainable way is an important one. Similarly, in relation to planning and building regulations, local procurement and a number of other devices are important proposals.
	The strengthening of local leadership under the proposed local government legislation in order to implement such measures, as well as devolving certain powers further and reducing targets so that local authorities have greater discretion to use their powers and budgets on a more widespread basis, will be important in relation to the front-line responsibility for sustainability that local government is increasingly taking on itself.
	The draft road transport Bill will enable local transport authorities to get a much better grip on how sustainable transport can work in their areas. That will be an important cynosure of how the Government intend to join up their approach to climate change and sustainability. If local transport authorities cannot plan how their bus services are to work better, how public transport is to replace private transport wherever possible, and how those networks are to function, they will not have the important weapon in their armoury that they will need to move the process of sustainability forward.
	On the planning front, we must bear in mind one caveat, however. I return to my first thoughts on what the Stern report told us about the time that we have in which to introduce mechanisms that will have an impact on climate change. If we introduce those mechanisms, their effect will not be seen in terms of a regular annual decrease. We shall see an iterative decrease as various mechanisms come into play, and we shall perhaps increase the downward trajectory of our carbon dioxide emissions over the years. Bearing in mind that we have to take this action within a certain time, we should ask ourselves whether it is a good idea to remove all the planning co-ordination at regional and national level relating to important devices such as waste management and energy strategies, and mechanisms that allow us to manage our energy and waste in a different way. Should we simply remove all planning co-ordination from those devices? My feeling is that, if we do, we shall throw away much of our ability to ensure that those changes can be made in the given time.
	I am reminded of a small recent episode in which a borough council refused planning permission for a landing station for the London Array. That has resulted in the holding up of a project that is almost universally recognised as an important part of the alternative renewable energy strategy. If we can get this balance right, we shall have done ourselves a favour as far as sustainability is concerned. If we get it wrong, however, we shall have put our case back by years. This Queen's Speech, and the mechanisms outlined in it, should be about ensuring that our progress is sustainable, joined up and in favour of combating climate change.

Mark Field: One immutable rule of UK governance is that local government reorganisation and restructuring are always expensive—often very expensive. Few outside the House might realise that fully 2.5 per cent. of every VAT bill levied is what we might call the poll tax or community charge memorial fund. The rise in VAT in 1991 from 15 to 17.5 per cent. was introduced to dampen the effects of the change in local government finance that took place at that time.
	The transition costs associated with the Government's new local government Bill will almost certainly exceed the £121 per person mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), which has been calculated in the Cambridge university study. However, I welcome in principle the streamlining of the performance and inspection regime, especially the much loathed best value and comprehensive performance assessments, although experience suggests that the implementation of these changes will be less than straightforward.
	I hope that you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I focus most of my comments on the capital, as I am a London Member. The Greater London Authority Bill purports to transfer significant powers from central Government to the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly. As there are two serving Assemblymen sitting on the Benches behind me, I should assure the House that I intend no criticism of the Members for Bexley and Bromley and for Croydon and Sutton in that other place. However, this proposed transfer of power raises the question of why we have a Government office for London in the first place. The duplication involved is quite breathtaking, and reflects the suspicion that the Labour Government have had of the present mayoral incumbent since 2000.
	Since the establishment of the Mayor and the Assembly in that year, spending on the Government office for London has doubled, and the number of its employees in 2005—the last year in which a parliamentary question on this matter was tabled and answered—was higher than before the new tier of London government came into play. Yet from the moment of his election, Mayor Livingstone began what has now been a six-and-a-half-year spending splurge, with countless advisers and policy and research officers producing endless reports, few of which concern areas of policy for which he has anything other than tangential responsibility.
	Naturally, none of this comes cheap. The council tax in London attributable to the Mayor and the GLA—the mayoral precept—has more than doubled in that period, from £123 in band D in 2000 to almost £300 today. Yet the Mayor of London empties not a single bin, cleans not a single street and runs not a single school, library or social services department. His budget goes on a huge public relations exercise alongside policing and the transport system, which seems scarcely fit for purpose to those who live in, work in and visit London. His failure to keep his eye on the financial ball is legendary. When not frittering away tens of thousands of pounds on abortive jaunts to Cuba or Venezuela, two countries not known for their support of the global capitalism of which London is surely the greatest exemplar, he runs a massive central bureaucracy at City Hall, which has recently been assessed in damning terms by its own internal auditor, the accounting firm Deloitte.
	The GLA is big and costly, with 673 permanent staff. The chief executive earns £175,000 a year while the average salary is some £50,000 a year. It has an annual wage bill of £35 million, yet there are also spiralling costs from the use of temporary agency staff. That wasteful, financially profligate story of incompetence is now the backdrop to Mayor Livingstone's demanding yet more powers. That will all, of course, come at significantly higher costs.
	On Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, I hope to address some of my more specific concerns about the proposals for housing and planning that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden touched on earlier. It would be inappropriate at this juncture to rehearse a Second Reading speech on such matters, but there are some deep concerns from the 33 London boroughs about precisely which strategic powers on housing and planning are to be transferred to the Mayor. If we are to believe in localism, which seems to be the new buzz word on both sides of the House, that must mean that such matters should be kept at the most local level rather than being decided at City Hall, with its enormous bureaucracy covering 7 million people over the whole of the capital city. I have some sympathy with the view that making the mayoralty work properly requires broader strategic powers, and so I will look on some of the proposals with an open mind. However, the evidence from the current incumbent has been of a grotesque failure that risks mortgaging the future of Londoners for decades to come.
	I am afraid that nowhere is that more apparent than in the funding of the 2012 Olympic games. Typically, once the bid was won the Prime Minister's interest waned. London council tax payers, presumably alongside worthy national lottery recipients, will have to foot the fast-rising bill. I say this with great regret, because I am a keen sports fan, but I rue the day that my city won the Olympic games bid. Many of us warned before the bid was won that the financial implications were not being properly thought through, yet Ministers derided my concerns at the time. What shocks me now is only that we face financial difficulties so quickly. Less than 18 months since we won the bid, the budget has doubled. We have had confusion over VAT, disputes over land ownership and the increasing likelihood that we will not be able to rely on a fixed price construction contract after the fiasco at Wembley stadium. We have had little indication that there will be a worthwhile legacy in the lower Lea valley to justify the enormous costs.

Mark Field: I have made it clear that I understand the view that says that we should increase the Mayor's powers. Clearly, we will have the Olympic games in London in 2012 and although we have seen the sorry financial situation, it is quite clear that the games will go ahead. They will be a success and a great spectacle, but I am addressing the issues of the long-term cost. I fear that the London Olympics will prove financially to be every bit as much of a disaster as the Montreal Olympics exactly 30 years ago, which are still being paid for by council tax payers in that Canadian city. Now, the Government say that they want to give more prudential borrowing power to the man who gave us this. We will need to give close consideration to the proposals in the Greater London Authority Bill.
	I also want to say a few words on nuclear power, which will be an important consideration this year for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs agenda. Like many Conservatives of a sceptical disposition, I am not entirely convinced by some of the more apocalyptic predictions made by the environmental lobby on climate change and, more particularly, about the man-made elements of recent fluctuations in global temperature. All too often, that has been used as a stick with which to beat global capitalism. Although I do not doubt the sincerity of some in this House who wish to parade their green credentials far and wide, the conversion of many others smacks of an ill-thought-through tactical manoeuvre.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend is right, and the Government have accepted in principle that the prudential borrowing rules should be extended to housing. I understand that the housing revenue account has some real complications, and that the prudential borrowing rules could have some perverse implications, including losses of grant, if houses are built as part of the process. That is why Ministers have now accepted that there should be six pilot authorities on housing—one is my authority in Sheffield—which will consider the workings of the housing revenue account and see whether changes are needed to allow those rules to be used so that houses can be built. I welcome the Minister's pilot scheme, but, clearly, some end results are needed as quickly as possible.
	In addition, it is slightly perverse that many services in Sheffield are rightly run by an elected local authority, but as much money is spent by the primary care trust, for which there is no accountability whatever. That body is appointed by an appointments commission, which is itself appointed, so it is two stages removed from political influence or control or even advice and assistance. It is so remote from those whom it serves that we must start to question why we cannot be radical and make the PCT part of the local authority. It is exactly the same size—in most cases, PCTs have been reformed to be contiguous with local authority boundaries. I know that the Prime Minister is always in favour of being even more radical than we are, so perhaps that suggestion can be put to him for a future occasion.
	On transport, I obviously welcome the Bill on nationwide concessionary bus fares for pensioners. Many of those benefits are already available to my constituents, because South Yorkshire has an extremely good system, with links with West Yorkshire providing free travel across the boundaries, and links with some services into north Derbyshire because of agreement between the authorities. We have extended the concessions to Supertram and to apply for a greater number of hours in the day.
	I welcome the proposals for a draft Bill to give powers back to local transport authorities to ensure that bus services meet the needs of our constituents. I understand that I am not supposed to use the word "reregulation", but giving powers back to transport authorities will do for me. It is nonsense that South Yorkshire now has only a third of the number of passengers riding buses as it had in 1986, and that fares have gone up by more than 100 per cent. in real terms. The year before last, we saw four fare increases in one year. Routes have been cut. The excellent concessionary fares scheme running in South Yorkshire could have a perverse impact because of challenges mounted by bus companies to the way in which they are compensated for the introduction of that scheme. If those challenges are successful, the money will have to be found by the passenger transport authority and executive, which will mean more cuts to bus and other transport services next year. We need to monitor that.
	It is welcome that consideration will be given in the draft Bill to a menu of solutions from which passenger transport authorities can select, so that we have the right solutions for the right areas. It is also welcome that passenger transport executives will be able to give their expert advice to us publicly about how to design a scheme that will work on the ground. Clearly, all the major bus companies have a vested interest in making sure that the legislation does not work. It is therefore important to listen to those who will have to implement it. I also welcome the proposals because of their impact on the environment. For the same reasons, I welcome the consideration to be given to the introduction of congestion charging in our cities and eventually on our motorways.
	As for the proposed planning legislation, I presume that that refers to the Government's planning gain supplement proposals. We are not sure, however, what the eventual Bill will contain. The Select Committee has considered planning gain supplement. Our initial response, which was right, was to ask whether it needed to be introduced, and whether we should not first examine in detail the possibility of reforming or enhancing section 106 arrangements. That seems to me to be the starting point, and such analysis has never been done. I am not in principle opposed to planning gain supplement, but it is worth while considering whether the existing system can be improved first.
	When a public policy decision means that a private individual or organisation makes considerable gains, it is absolutely right that a percentage of those gains should go back to benefit the public purse. We are going in the right direction on that, but we should analyse whether there is an easier and simpler way of doing it. As part of that approach, whether we move to planning gain supplement or enhanced section 106 powers, we should give local authorities clear advice that, although we instinctively believe, as I hope we all do, in devolution to local authorities in relation to section 106 decisions for certain schemes, there are some good examples of local authorities being proactive in that field, and some bad examples of local authorities doing nothing at all. If local authorities want those enhanced powers, the best thing that they can do is to start learning from each other about how best to use them.
	Generally, I welcome the Queen's Speech, and especially those measures that I have identified. I welcome in principle the climate change Bill, the local government Bill and the proposed transport legislation. I look forward to seeing the details of those proposals in due course.

Phil Willis: I greatly enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), as he quoted several aspects of Liberal Democrat policy. I welcome his conversion with regard to some of the debates that I have had with him over the years, especially when he was leader of Sheffield city council.
	Most of my contribution will not be on the main element of tonight's debate, as it is customary that Back Benchers may speak on other aspects of the Queen's Speech. I shall confine most of my comments to the human tissue and embryo proposals in the Queen's Speech, which did not get much attention on Thursday. I compliment the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on his contribution, because, without such debate, and without such an element of scepticism, we simply walk straight forward.
	What I liked most about the Stern report was the way in which it tried to analyse the economic situation and how it would develop. If the hon. Gentleman reads nothing else, I suggest that he read chapter 1, in which Stern assesses the available scientific evidence about climate change. Stern does not say "I am a scientist: I know the answers." He says, "I have looked at all the evidence that is available, and have reached the following conclusion." Whether the earth heats up by 2°, 3° or 5°—Stern's worst-case scenario—we must have a starting point.
	We have had a superb debate today. The right hon. Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), and, in particular, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), demonstrated what the debate should be about. At the end of the day it is not about targets, no matter how wedded each of our parties may be to them; it is about the larger objective of doing something about what many of us regard as the greatest threat to our planet.
	We have heard some interesting speeches about the local government Bill, but it was disappointing to note the consuming interest of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in organisation. Although it criticises various elements of reorganisation, the Tory party itself seems to have a consuming interest in yet another reorganisation. I smiled at the new title "The Permissive State", which struck me as an interesting concept—as did "structural fetishism", which I also quite liked.
	As I have lived through four attempted reorganisations in North Yorkshire over the past years, the thought of yet more reorganisation of local government fills me with dread. I hope that the Bill will allow local authorities to make those decisions, and I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will reassure us that unitary authorities will not be forced on communities that do not want them.
	My main purpose is to discuss the human tissue and embryos Bill, to which the Queen's Speech refers. I understand that there is to be a draft Bill, but that it will not be tabled until March. I can say on behalf of the Select Committee on Science and Technology that we would like very much to play a part in the process. Although on Thursday the draft Bill received little more than a cursory mention from the Secretary of State for Health, and indeed all Front Benchers, it is enormously significant to the House and our communities—not simply childless couples but the thousands of would-be parents who are carriers of defective genes—and to the hugely promising research programmes that are linked to therapeutic and cloning and embryonic stem cell lines.
	The House will know that the Select Committee, led by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and me, has been involved in the Bill's progress from the beginning. It has been a long time coming. Indeed, it was the Government's failure to review the legislation on human reproductive technologies that led to the last Committee's announcement in 2003 of an inquiry into the subject, and subsequently to the Government's review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Our Committee's report appeared in March 2005, just before the general election, and the Department of Health then issued its own consultation paper in August. The current Committee has continued to keep a watching brief, and we have had a debate on the subject in the Chamber. The Committee took further evidence from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—the Minister responsible for public health—in July this year. We urged the Government to produce firm proposals, and we are pleased that at last we have been listened to.
	Given the current controversy and wildly inaccurate reporting of proposals by researchers from King's College London and the North-East England Stem Cell Institute in Newcastle to create hybrid embryos using human cells and animal eggs to develop new treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's, stroke and Alzheimer's, I hope that the draft Bill will help to bolster confidence in that ground-breaking field of research.
	The Bill is necessary to facilitate the replacement of the two existing regulators, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority, with one new authority, the regulatory authority for tissue and embryos. However, I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision not to include the work of the Human Genetics Commission in that of the new organisation. If public confidence in our scientists is to be maintained, there must be a transparent mechanism to provide advice on issues with ethical or societal implications, and that should not be the role of the regulator. Equally, Parliament should have a greater role in outlining the ethical parameters for the regulator. The public health Minister has indicated that she is exploring new ways in which Parliament can have a greater say when science changes. I hope that she will examine seriously our proposals for a Standing Committee on bio-ethics. It will be interesting to see how we can draw the line between parliamentary oversight and parliamentary interference.
	The draft Bill, however, is intended to go beyond the establishment of a new regulatory structure. The Leader of the House's website tells us that its key objectives are to
	"ensure that the law that regulates human reproductive technologies is updated to reflect new technologies",
	to
	"promote public confidence in human reproductive technologies through effective regulatory controls",
	and
	"to ensure that the law takes account of changes in public attitude since the current legislation was formulated in the 1980s".
	That sign that the Government are prepared to use the Bill to take on some of the concerns expressed in our report and in public consultation is welcome.
	One essential area in which the parameters need to be established more clearly in the legislation involves the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, the technique that allows parents to reduce the risk of passing on serious hereditary conditions and diseases by screening embryos. Abnormal embryos are then not implanted. Developed in the 1980s, computer techniques allow screening for virtually all known genetic disorders, including cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anaemia. Yet there is significant controversy over the technique, and some, such as the pressure group "Comment On Ethics", fear that it will lead to designer babies.
	The question for Parliament is: how do we allow researchers to respond quickly to new developments while retaining public confidence? There are also issues surrounding sex selection of embryos, which is not subject to an explicit statutory ban. The HFEA permits it only for serious gender-related genetic conditions when the selection is carried out by means of PGD; but sex selection can be achieved by other means, such as sperm sorting, which fall outside the remit of the HFEA. Strong views have been expressed on that practice as well.
	The Minister told us that her Department was
	"minded to pursue a clear and explicit ban in the law which covers all assisted reproductive treatments in relation to sex selection, where it is not for serious medical conditions".
	We will be interested to see how that is framed in the legislation, and how the ban can be implemented in the internet age.
	The most recent issue to hit the press has been the creation of human-cow hybrids for research purposes, or indeed the creation of embryos from stem cells for research purposes. I believe that there is clear evidence that the legislative framework needs to catch up both with the developments in technology and with public opinion. There are many—including Lord Winston and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—who say that further clarification is not necessary when the resulting hybrid is 99.9 per cent. human. I beg to differ. Medical research in the United Kingdom in this field is ahead of that in the rest of the world, because we have always taken public opinion with us. We do not wish to hold back scientific advances, but the public must retain confidence in the system.
	There are one or two other issues that appear not to be in the draft Bill, but could justifiably be included. The first is the question of donor anonymity, a hugely important issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) in a speech on 16 November. The fact that the number of sperm donors has dropped alarmingly following the abolition of anonymity in April 2005 must be revisited.
	Secondly, there is the matter of abortion time limits, which the Government understandably seem less than keen to reopen. I wholeheartedly support the view of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) that it should not be dealt with in the draft Bill. Indeed, it was a mistake to include amendments to the Abortion Act 1967 in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Nor should we attempt to change the law via the somewhat naive ten-minute rule, under the Termination of Pregnancy Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). What is required is a review of the scientific, medical and social changesin the evidence on abortion since the last legislation 16 years ago. While a private Member's Bill would need to be introduced to change the law, without a detailed examination of the evidence, the debate will generate more heat than light.
	I am sorry for interrupting the proceedings to introduce another issue, but I think that the human tissue and embryos Bill is incredibly important and I hope that, when it comes before the House, it will the receive the consideration that it deserves.

Angela Eagle: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who made a thought-provoking speech on an issue that we should all be interested in and that will be before Parliament soon.
	Creating economic security should always be at the centre of the social democratic agenda because it is essential to its success and long-term political health. The people who Labour was created to represent often rely on the security and opportunity engendered by empowering Government action to enhance their prospects in life. After all, it is those at the bottom end of the income distribution who are usually the first to suffer from the cold winds of political philosophies that seek to shrink the role of the state and advocate tax cuts and lower public expenditure.
	This legislative programme contains some welcome further additions to Labour's economic opportunity agenda, which will spread the advances that we have already made as a Government even further. Ten years ago, we inherited a laissez-faire mantra of despair from the previous Thatcherite Tory Government. According to their philosophy, poverty did not exist in the UK and the state was part of the problem, not ever any part of the solution. If someone was struggling, tough luck. If they had to use public transport, they were a failure. If they needed to claim benefits, they were a scrounger, the subject of sneering ministerial verse at Tory party conference. Worse still, if they were a single mother, they were to blame for virtually all society's ills. Contemptuous, mocking, uncaring: it was the nasty party in the prime of its political dominance.
	Times have changed and the public have realised that there is another way. The state can be enabling and the Government can become a force for good. We have seen in the past 10 years that reducing child and pensioner poverty is not only compatible with a stronger economy, but enhances our ability as a society to harness all our talents. The minimum wage does not destroy jobs. In fact, it protects the weakest from exploitation at work. The political choice is not between social justice and economic success. The fact is that achieving a fairer, more equal society in which security and opportunity are available to all, enhances our economic success.
	Those positive advances in social justice did not happen by accident. They came about because a Labour Government initiated them after the electorate supported them. Those advances were not inevitable, and they should not be taken for granted. They are unlikely to endure if the political weather changes and the Conservative party returns to power.
	Here are just a few highlights of a substantial and serious legislative programme that I am particularly pleased to see included in Labour's plans for this parliamentary Session. The pensions Bill will enable women to have easier access to the state pension for the first time since it was created. That will assist in closing the gender pension gap, which stands at an unacceptable 43 per cent. The Bill will set out a framework that will enable all our citizens to have access to simplified provision and a low-cost national system of personal saving accounts.
	At the other end of the age range, the further education and training Bill will restructure the further education sector to make it more effective in its delivery of opportunities for many who do not wish to go to university. The Leech review highlighted the real challenges that persist in the UK to deliver higher levels of skills in our work force. If we are to continue competing successfully in a globalising economy, we must get this right and quickly. Allowing further education institutions to acquire powers to award foundation degrees should open ladders of opportunity in the vocational sector that have been absent for far too long.
	I particularly welcome the two transport Bills in the Government's legislative programme. They have the potential to transform the lives of many of my constituents in Wallasey for the better. The concessionary bus travel Bill will enable everyone over 60 and all people with disabilities to take advantage of free travel on all local buses anywhere in England by April 2008. That £600 million package will improve the lives of 11 million people, many of whom have been denied the chance to travel, often on the ground of the prohibitive cost.
	The draft road transport Bill offers an even more important and long overdue re-regulation of local bus services. That will enable locally accountable bodies to get proper value for money for the huge public subsidies that are paid to private bus companies. In Merseyside alone, that amounts to £1 million a week, with no control over routes or timetables and no stability in local bus services. The result has been a halving of passenger use and a 30 per cent. increase in fares. It is high time that the disastrous Tory deregulation of our bus services outside London was reversed and I look forward to seeing the Bill in draft when it is published.
	Like many other hon. Members, I wish to make some observations on the major challenges we face in tacking climate change in the aftermath of the Stern review. I also wish to comment on the discrimination law review that is being undertaken by the Government and which I believe should lead to a radical single equality Bill, ideally in this legislative Session rather than the next.
	The Stern review will be seen in retrospect as a ground-breaking report of global importance. I agree with its conclusion that the effect of human activity on emissions of greenhouse gases presents us with a very serious global risk that will require an urgent global response. I agree also with Stern's observation that only international collective action can drive an effective and equitable response on the scale required to affect the currently disastrous likely outcome and to give us a chance of staving off the serious risks of calamity that we are now running.
	The report makes sobering reading for those sceptics who advocate a business-as-usual approach. It plausibly demonstrates that, with no action to tackle the danger of greenhouse gas emissions, one in six of the world's population would be threatened by water shortages in this century, while 200 million people would be displaced by rising sea levels. Declining crop yields would increase death by malnutrition and we would face the extinction of up to 40 per cent. of our world's biodiversity. Unlike the disruption of the two world wars, with which the economic costs of this are comparable, climate change would be irreversible and could become uncontrollable.
	The Treasury Committee has been taking evidence on globalisation and, like the Stern report, I have been struck by an emerging consensus among non-governmental organisations and normally right-wing economists alike that Governments have to do something. As an eminent economist, Stern is correct to identify climate change as
	"the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen".
	That presents a significant challenge to orthodox economic theory. Creating the analytical tools to help us understand these potentially catastrophic processes will require the incorporation of some of the more radical economic theories into the mainstream. The current analytical framework that excludes externalities such as pollution and fails to identify environmental sustainability at all, will simply not be fit for purpose as we confront the challenges of climate change.
	Stern is correct to emphasise the role of the economics of risk and uncertainty, the long time horizons necessary to price the environmental cost of human activity appropriately, and the need to drive a dramatic and rapid switch to less damaging activity over a relatively short time scale. He concludes that we must develop major non-marginal change at a global level. The move to a "significantly lower carbon trajectory" must be seen as an investment rather than a cost, as it would be seen traditionally, and it has to be globally co-ordinated if it is to be effective.
	Happily, the Stern review also charts realistic ways forward and emphasises that there is not a choice between economic growth and irreversible climate change. We can continue with economic development, but only alongside carbon pricing, rapid technological development and technology transfer, as well as significant behavioural change among both individuals and corporations. All of that is challenging, but possible and we must now build the global framework agreements and institutions that will make it a reality. The climate change Bill is one small part of what must be a huge international effort.
	One major issue that works against both security and opportunity in our society as it is currently constructed is the stubborn persistence of significant discrimination and unfairness in Britain. The lives of far too many of our fellow citizens are still blighted by bigotry and narrowed by unlawful discrimination that simply goes unpunished by ineffective legal protection or inadequate enforcement. People with disabilities are at only the start of their long fight for access to adequate educational and employment opportunities. Illegal discrimination against pregnant women is rife and mostly unchecked. Only 58 per cent. of people from ethnic minorities are in work, whereas the proportion for the population as a whole is 75 per cent. Both the gender and the race pay gaps persist and are widening in many areas, especially in the private sector. The part-time gender pay gap now stands at a massive 40 per cent. Despite 30 years of legislative effort, much still needs to be done. This Government have made great strides and have introduced important new protections, but now is the right time for a step change in this crucial area.
	Ministers have recognised the need to look again at the nature of the equality law by appointing the head of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights to undertake the discrimination law review. That is expected to result in conclusions that will feed into a single equality Act in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is an exciting once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver the step change that we need.
	We must create a radically simplified but more comprehensive and effective legislative framework for equality and opportunity than the one that we have. To tackle the pay gaps, we need to have compulsory pay audits and annual monitoring of the situation in the private sector. That works well in Northern Ireland, where the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which requires such monitoring and publishes the results, has had a big impact. We also need to allow class actions, to make a reality of the legal requirement for equal pay for work of equal value. It is completely unacceptable that equal pay claims currently take up to 12 years to resolve and, even if they are successful, they only apply to the individuals who were brave enough to take them up.
	A single equality Act should extend the duty to promote equality from the public sector to the private sector, where the pay gaps are much larger and are growing. It should also allow the use of public sector procurement to require compliance with those standards. The current word in Whitehall is that the discrimination law review is turning into a missed opportunity—or, to put it another way, a damp squib. It appears to be narrowing its vision and scaling down its ambition. That must not be allowed to happen.
	I appeal to Ministers to seize the opportunity that they have to turn our under-inclusive but over-complex equality law into a real instrument for change. We need it to help us achieve the improvement in life chances that the original law was put on the statute book to produce. It must be simpler to understand, focused on outputs and much more effectively enforced. Such a Bill should be included in this legislative programme and not have to wait for the next, because it is at the centre of Labour's values and philosophy.
	I wholeheartedly welcome the measures contained in the Queen's Speech, and I hope that we can work on a cross-party basis to improve our prospects of dealing with the global challenge of climate change. I also hope that Ministers will heed the following words: be bold, be ambitious and give us an equality law that we can work with.

James Duddridge: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right that the sooner we know about any shortfall, the sooner we shall be able to remedy the problem. If we cannot measure our activities regularly, we will not be able to deploy our Government's limited financial resources.
	An annual carbon budget report will be needed, alongside the activities on climate change. That will focus our progress specifically on the issue of carbon, rather than simply on global warming in general. There should be a single dedicated Cabinet Minister responsible for climate change. I welcome the move towards having a single Minister with responsibility for that, but if we are serious about taking longer term action on the environment, one of the seats at the Cabinet table should be taken by someone focusing entirely on the issue. The Stern report says that climate change should be made our highest priority. so having one member dedicated to it out of a Cabinet of 20-odd Ministers does not seem inappropriate.
	I support the move to an office of climate change. The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, who has just left his place, explained in a written answer to me that that office
	"will support Ministers as they develop future UK strategy and policy on domestic and international climate change."—[ Official Report, 31 October 2006; Vol. 451, c. 275W.]
	In answer to other questions, he explained that there will be both a ministerial board and an officials board, but I was disappointed that that group will not produce reports on an ongoing basis; we will see the effect of that group only on broader Government policy and how it is presented to the House and the public. If the office is to have any teeth, it is worth sharing with us what it is doing in greater detail.
	I am also cognisant of the changes in the roles of successive Deputy Prime Ministers. Each Deputy Prime Minister—be they Conservative or Labour—defines the job in a very different and special way, as we have certainly seen recently. If Labour Members do not support having a single Minister entirely responsible for climate change, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could take on a greater role in advocating dealing with the issue.
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, could play an important part in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the climate change Bill. In no way do I want to prevent the Bill from being considered more generally on the Floor of the House, because there is an urgent need for it, but there might be some merit in having a detailed cross-party discussion of how we set targets, so that we can to depoliticise to some degree the issue before the Bill reaches the Floor.
	The Select Committee is working on a series of climate change inquiries, the first of which concerns bioenergy, an issue to which I shall return. First, I want to discuss the Committee's trip to China, to which our Chairman referred earlier. While there, we visited the Jilin province, where we were told that the aspiration was to put a car on the driveway of every Chinese family. The Committee found that enormously worrying, and our concerns were amplified throughout the visit. Several Chinese politicians told us of their distrust of capitalism, and they extended that distrust to our comments on climate change. They felt that what the western world was saying about climate change was potentially a capitalist conspiracy in order to stop—

Linda Gilroy: I found it difficult to choose a debate to which to contribute this week. The Queen's Speech included Bills on issues such as child support, concessionary bus travel, consumer estate agents and redress, digital switchover, further education and training, mental health, offender management and pension reform, to name but a few, that all have their supporters in my mailbag. Some correspondents have suggestions, others want change and others are concerned about the effects of changes. In the end, I chose to speak in this debate on the environment and climate change, for reasons that will become obvious.
	I welcome the local government Bill, which will build on work done in previous legislation. It will strengthen and enhance the role and powers of councillors, especially in overview and scrutiny. It will also strengthen their links with the local community.
	Plymouth has been named as one of the growth areas and I welcome multi-area agreements, and we look forward to building our relationships with surrounding authorities without them feeling that we are empire-building. Mackey, the international planner, has developed a vision plan for Plymouth that envisages that its population will grow from some 250,000 to 300,000 in the next 20 years. Unlike some parts of the country, we welcome such growth and believe that we have much to gain from it in terms of developing a sustainable community.
	Last week, we launched our local economic development strategy to complement the strategy that Mackey has developed for us for our built environment. One of the key sectors of the growth strategy is marine sciences. The oceans make up some 80 to 90 per cent. of the earth's surface and, at their deepest, are three times as deep as the highest mountain. They have absorbed more than half of the carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. There has been much talk of carbon capture and sequestration, and the oceans provide one of the key buffers. Plymouth has hidden its light under a bushel with regard to the scientific and economic activity involved in marine research, and we are set to develop that area. We have some excellent science that is being developed through the Plymouth marine sciences partnership, which is at the heart of the potential marine science cluster in the area.
	The PMSP was formed in 1999 to collaborate on research projects and develop the profile of marine science in Plymouth. It consists of five organisations, including the University of Plymouth's marine institute, the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom and the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science. Several of those organisations are involved in research that has a bearing on climate change.
	The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom is a charitable company as well as a leading professional body for 1,200 marine scientists. It also conducts research, consultancy work and short-course teaching, which is classed as charitable trading. I visited the association and the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science when I shadowed a Royal Society scientist, Richard Kirby, a couple of years ago. I looked at the work he was doing through the foundation, which runs the continuous plankton recorder survey. That internationally renowned longitudinal survey of plankton levels in the north Atlantic and North sea, originally designed to predict where fish might be located, was started more than 70 years ago in 1931. Recently, the global warming agenda has driven the continued need for the survey as the incidence of warm-water plankton can be used as a proxy for climate change. Plankton are the basis of the food chain and the survey has shown how fish stocks have moved further north as a result of the effects of climate change on the oceans. Plymouth has one of the biggest and fastest growing fish markets in Europe and the fisheries in the English channel are very important to it. There has been much talk in recent years about the exhaustion of fish stocks, but in fact they have moved with the plankton, which are at the bottom of their food chain.
	The Plymouth Marine Laboratory is the second largest dedicated marine institute in the UK after the National Oceanographic Centre in Southampton. The PML was formed in the 1970s and was formerly under the ownership of the Natural Environment Research Council. It was privatised in 2002 and is a registered charity that includes Plymouth Marine Applications Ltd. When I first knew the laboratory it was considering the problems caused by carbon sequestration in the oceans, but it is now considering innovative approaches to marine solutions to climate change.
	Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I visited the laboratory and saw a project in which algae is grown in culture and processed and developed to capture carbon. It will be used with the new Langage gas-fired power station which is being built. The process also produces materials that can be used in sunscreens and skin care products and added to biofuels. That is a virtuous circle that shows that the science of the oceans, which has been little explored, could be very valuable. I am told by the scientists that there are as many as 60 million microbes—equivalent to the population of the United Kingdom—in a third of a glass of water. They have been little explored, but it is thought that they can make a huge contribution to solving some of the problems we face.
	Although I am disappointed that there was no marine Bill in the Queen's Speech, I will take a keen interest in much of the climate change Bill. I hope that, following its successful passage we will see a marine Bill, in draft if not in its final form.
	We have had much debate about target setting, and I am sure that there will be more. We should not get into a battle on the issue, because our constituents take climate change seriously and want solutions, not arguments. I signed the recent early-day motion on target setting, but—as I told those constituents who urged me to sign it—I have some reservations about how far annual targets will get us. However, I agree that we need some form of measurement. We need a deep debate about that to come up with the right answers so that we are not tied down by an unhelpful bureaucracy; we need one that helps us in the process towards the ends we all want to achieve.
	A related point is the role of the carbon committee. At the weekend, some commentators suggested that the committee should be made independent, like the Bank of England. We could draw on that experience to some extent, but we should also look at the role played by the Low Pay Commission in helping us to bring the minimum wage on stream, without all the repercussions that the Opposition warned about, such as the high level of unemployment that did not happen. That comparison is relevant when we consider some of the controversial matters about which we shall have to encourage our constituents to come on board. They are certainly controversial in my constituency. Road congestion and charging is one such matter. The draft Bill will take us a bit further forward, but we shall need to encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport. Other Members have referred to aviation and so on.
	As chair of the all-party group on water, I want to touch on that subject in the closing moments of my speech. Water management and efficiency are, as others have said, closely related to climate change. The first two weeks of November saw only 10 per cent. of normal rainfall, although we may have made up for that over the weekend. There is a need for short and long-term planning and innovative approaches to help mediate between industry, the regulator, consumers and environmental interests, as well as to address the challenges of flood and drought, which many people think have their roots in climate change.

Anne Snelgrove: Yes, I do, as Friends of the Earth forms part of the Swindon climate change network: it is already included in my umbrella.
	I was particularly pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that the local government Bill will give people more control over their own neighbourhoods. Measures such as antisocial behaviour orders have been introduced to help, but people still feel disempowered. I hope that the Bill will give control back to them. I do not like attending meetings at which I hear, as I did last Friday, pensioners say how worried they are about going out at night because they live on the route home from some of our local clubs. The behaviour and activities of some young people who come home early in the morning is quite atrocious.
	Housing is another important issue that has been mentioned this afternoon. Swindon also faces the prospect of the building of many extra houses without the correct infrastructure in place and without the necessary further measures on top of the Government's 40 per cent. increase to make housing greener. I fear that we will not be environmentally friendly enough in Swindon and I do not want to see that happen. I want thoroughly green measures to be implemented under our legislation.
	I shall talk about local government measures from my experience as a local councillor and of my local authority, Swindon borough council. To illustrate some of the issues, I shall refer to the example of the lower Shaw farm, which the council unfortunately wants to close, possibly to sell it off for extra housing. Together with other pressure groups, I am fighting that decision.
	The Labour Government have invested heavily to bring about improvements in local public services. The next stage is to guarantee national standards while supporting local communities to take a lead on decisions that affect them. By 2007-08, the total Labour Government grant to local authorities will have increased by 39 per cent. since 1997.
	In addition, £2 million has been provided by the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Health to turn around my local council. Subsequently, the council achieved its two-star rating in December last year and the Government have begun to give it more autonomy. I congratulate the local council, its officers and councillors and the Government officers who helped the council to achieve that. Direct intervention in the administration has at last ended, but the idea that Government support has ended is wrong, as Government policy continues to underpin the improvements.
	I should like to draw out from that experience a few points about local government reorganisation, as the possibility of more unitary authorities is now on the cards. We had a brief debate earlier about the most appropriate size of unitary authorities. From my experience as a councillor involved in the reorganisation of Berkshire county council and from my involvement with Swindon borough council, I believe that the most important thing is not necessarily the size of the local authority, but the understanding, vision and capacity of its members and officers, plus the support and advice that authorities are given by the Government and other supporting agencies.
	The circumstances of the reorganisation are also important. Berkshire's splitting into six unitary authorities was very different from Swindon's becoming a unitary authority after leaving an existing, but smaller, Wiltshire county council. It was different in Berkshire because the county council was no more, whereas Wiltshire county council remained and Swindon borough council, as a unitary authority, got a pretty raw deal under the reorganisation. I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on the lessons learned from the 1990s reorganisations and apply them to any future reorganisations. I also hope that councillors and officers will reflect on those lessons. Discussions can be acrimonious, but I hope that they will not adversely affect people's transfer to new unitary authorities.
	To come back to discussing Swindon, I was pleased to learn today that the town falls within one of the successful pathfinder areas for primary schools, which means that it will receive an additional capital grant of £6.5 million in April 2008. I thank the Minister for Schools for the record investment in Swindon schools.
	Nevertheless, Swindon borough council is still claiming that it needs to sell off much-loved capital assets, such as Lower Shaw farm, which is a community resource that local people value. I am very concerned about the sell-off of the farm. It is run by the Lower Shaw Farm Association and is a thriving educational and recreational centre. It was a dairy farm initially bought by the then Thamesdown borough council, but in the scheme of things, it was not required for development. It was later agreed by council members—this was minuted—that the Lower Shaw farm should be
	"retained in perpetuity as a centre for educational and recreational activities appropriate to its natural environment, its unique setting, and its founding spirit".
	During the past 20 years, the association's work has developed and expanded. Its important role in Swindon was recognised in 2002 when Lower Shaw farm was the first winner of the local Agenda 21 "quality of life" award for
	"boosting awareness and interest in sustainability".
	Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members have appeared at the farm, during the literature festival, for example, and on other courses, and some of them know it well. Its activities have grown to include up to 24 structured residential courses and recreational events in all sorts of spheres. It is a beacon of excellence—not just educationally, as it also a beacon of environmental and local government excellence. That is why I am raising the issue in today's debate.
	I do not understand why a local council is claiming that it has to apply best value rules and therefore sell it to the highest bidder. I do not understand why the council is seeking to close down something with such a proven track record, with all its facilities and expertise in matters educational, cultural and environmental. It could be a flagship project for Swindon if only the local Conservative administration were prepared to support it instead of attempting to close it. It was championing environmental issues such as recycling and composting 20 years ago, when they were perceived as cranky. Now that they are in the mainstream, we should not consider closing such a place—it is a green lung in west Swindon—and concreting over it, as is proposed.
	I hope that you will indulge me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and allow me to speak about something that is not part of today's debate but will feature on another day of our Queen's Speech debate. As hon. Members know, the Farepak problem emanates from my constituency. I want to speak about that because of the announcement in the Queen's Speech of a consumers redress Bill. Farepak's bankruptcy blights the Christmas of perhaps 500,000 decent people, many of whom have been saving since January, and it casts a shadow over the beginning of the season of good will.
	We need to fulfil our manifesto commitment to
	"protect the rights of consumers, bringing forward proposals to strengthen and streamline consumer advocacy",
	especially in the light of problems such as Farepak. However, we also need to fulfil an unwritten commitment, which, I believe, exists between the Government and the Farepak savers, who trusted the advice of hon. Members to save and avoid debt, yet have not been rewarded. Indeed, they have been punished for saving.
	Given that consumers have to use all the information available to them to make decisions about where to buy their goods or put their savings, the Farepak customers could not have known what the parent company was up to. We understand now that the parent company was removing money from Farepak and using it to prop up others in its family of companies. My constituents could not possibly have known that. They invested their money, as did constituents throughout the country, and were badly let down.
	It has been said that the consumers redress Bill will cover doorstep selling. We need to be careful about that. Of course, people who sell on the doorstep and are employed by companies need to have rigorous measures applied to their work. However, some of the Farepak agents were working on behalf of the company to collect money on the doorstep from their friends and neighbours. We must be careful about the strictures and restrictions that we apply to their behaviour, and our support for or condemnation of them. Those agents feel guilty because they collected the money from their friends and neighbours. I do not want a Bill to place such people in a more vulnerable position in future.
	However, I am glad that the Government intend to introduce a Bill to crack down on those who rip off vulnerable people in our communities. I hope that it closes the loophole that allowed Farepak savers to lose so much. I hope that the proposals will protect people who save with similar companies next year. They start saving in January; if we do not introduce a measure quickly, I fear that others may be in a vulnerable position this time next year.
	The measures in the Queen's Speech will continue the transformation of my constituents' lives. The Bills that I have mentioned include some radical proposals, which will make life better for my constituents. There are other proposals on security, which reflect the enormous changes in our lives since 1997, and ensure that we will be better protected and live safer lives locally, nationally and internationally.
	A Bill on further education, training and skills will be introduced. I hope that it ensures that many more young people in Swindon go on to achieve better and more academic qualifications.
	There will be Bills on concessionary bus travel and on pension reform. There is even the Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill, which will ensure that all our constituents can watch their televisions in the safety and happiness of their homes.

Andrew George: I do not wish to embarrass the Government or the Minister. I am sure that an explanation will be given later, and it is not for me to expand on the justification that the Minister gave. He simply suggested that the Bill would not receive sympathetic treatment if it were introduced now, and would be better received by the devolved Administrations if it were introduced later. The indications are that it will be introduced in the third Session of this Parliament, not the second Session. Obviously, I believe that to be regrettable.
	We look forward to the introduction of the local government Bill. On the theme of local government reorganisation, I hope that the Government accept that they should play an enabling role, rather than a controlling one. They have plenty of experience showing that they do not gain anything by taking an over-prescriptive, micro-managing and controlling approach. Indeed, that has created serious problems, not only in local government but in the management of the health service and many other areas. I hope that the Government will learn from speakers of all parties in today's debate that they should play an enabling, not a controlling, role. They should get off local authorities' backs, and they should not dictate or micro-manage their activities.
	I trust that the Government have learned the lessons of the north-east referendum that took place little more than two years ago. I hope that the local government Bill will incorporate a strong dose of devolution, because the lesson of that referendum was that devolution and decentralisation are a process of letting go, not of holding on for dear life. I hope that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whose South Shields constituency is in the north-east, accepts that interpretation of the problem. It was not a matter of the people of the north-east failing to welcome a devolved settlement, because the Government approached them with an offer on their own terms, within their boundaries and timetable. They virtually held a gun to their heads and said, "Do you want it or not?" Inevitably, in those circumstances, they said no. If the Government had simply offered a menu of powers, giving the people of the north-east—or, indeed, of any other region—the opportunity to make a business case and act on their own initiative, rather than having an agenda forced down their throat, the outcome would have been entirely different. I hope that the Government accept that.
	Local authorities have become local Government agents, both under this and the previous Administration. They simply deliver Government policy with little room for fiscal or regulatory manoeuvre. Many people who operate at that level wonder why they bother, as they are simply carrying out Government wishes. The so-called regional dimension must be given prominence. Hon. Members have referred to "the region", but in my part of the world there is not a region of the south-west. A south-west zone has been created by the Government for bureaucratic convenience and benefit. A region implies some kind of internal integrity and community of interest. There is none in that area. I can see the administrative attraction for the Government, but it makes no sense to people in the area.
	If the Government want to achieve something bold, ambitious, creative and sustainable in local government, they must learn to let go. In a place like Cornwall, we could do something bold and ambitious, and establish a single directly elected body for Cornwall—we will not call it an assembly at this stage; we will just call it a body for Cornwall—which could draw down powers. We are keen and ambitious. We have objective 1 funding and it has worked well when we undertake projects ourselves, working in partnership, without too much Government interference. We have struggled only when there has been Government interference.
	I hope the Government will recognise that in the local government Bill they should enable people to come together, and not prescribe too much. In the Bill they should not tell local authorities how to elect their executive or how to go about certain types of elections or configurations within local government. People on the ground are grown up enough to come up with their own solutions and do not need to be told by central Government. I hope the Government will take an enabling role.
	When the Government introduce planning legislation, as is proposed in the Queen's Speech, I hope they will recognise that they must devolve more to local authorities, particularly the ability to use effective tools for the delivery of affordable housing. In the past 30 years my area has seen a higher rate of housing growth than almost anywhere else in the country, yet the mismatch between the level of local earnings and house prices is among the highest, if not the highest, in the country, and the social housing problems are among the worst, if not the worst, in the country. Building houses is not the answer. A much more sophisticated solution is needed.
	The Government must recognise the fundamental truism that planning is fuelled by greed, rather than by need. In my area people hold on to land because they want to turn a field from £3,000 an acre to £1 million an acre. That is natural human frailty and I do not criticise them for it. I understand the motivation for it, but how will we ever build affordable housing with land prices like that? That value is not created through some skill on the part of the landowner or through their endeavour. It is given to them when a planning authority signs an agreement to it.
	The motivation has gone the wrong way. How can we develop an intermediate market in those circumstances? The Government must make a distinction between fettered and unfettered planning permissions, and clamp down on the unfettered. It is the hope of unfettered planning permissions that is holding back any possibility of meeting the need for affordable housing in such an area. I hope the Government will bear that in mind when they present their proposals for a review. They must be bold and also give local authorities the tools to deliver affordable housing.
	The Government can achieve that in two ways—first, by distinguishing more clearly and giving local authorities the powers to clamp down on unfettered permissions, to fetter permissions with section 106 agreements, covenants and other means, and to work with registered social landlords and others to achieve affordable housing. Secondly, the Government need to recognise the characteristics of the housing market. I did a survey of estate agents in my area the other day which shows that five times as many properties have been sold to second home buyers as to first-time buyers. Some estate agents told me that 65 per cent. of their properties sold last year went to second home purchasers and 0 per cent. to first-time purchasers. That is not because there is no one who wants those properties. It is because there is no chance of them ever getting those properties.
	The Government need to grasp the issue by the throat. They should give local authorities the tools to differentiate between permanent and non-permanent uses—people using the property for permanent residential use, and those using it for investment and recreational purposes. That can be done through a change in the use class order.
	We are not debating House of Lords reform today, but I want to make the point that we should really consider that subject under the heading of "effective scrutiny", because the purpose is not only to reform the House of Lords but to achieve effective scrutiny in Parliament. We should first ask ourselves what we want a second Chamber for. We do not want it to be simply a mirror image of this Chamber. We need a second Chamber that is able to engage in effective scrutiny, revision and sober second thought. That means that we need to do something a great deal more interesting than many of the proposals for various levels of directly elected Members in the second Chamber.
	I disagree with members of my own Front Bench on this issue, but I believe that if we genuinely want to achieve a second Chamber that is neither a lapdog nor a logjam Chamber—depending on its complexion in relation to that of this House and of the Government—we need to consider ways of ensuring that we have a Chamber that, while not based on patronage, has Members who can provide effective scrutiny, revision and sober second thought without the tribalism that we get in this Chamber.
	I hope that the Government will reflect on today's debate. It has raised a number of challenging issues, and the Government really need to be bold in many areas. However, they also need to understand the underlying theme of much of the debate, which is that they need to take an enlightened approach and lay off the controlling approach that they have adopted over the past nine years.

David Burrowes: Certainly, there have been successes in crime reduction, but the hon. Lady makes my point: the focus of the Government's drug strategy has been to use the criminal justice system and to enable addicts to receive treatment, rather than to consider the wider harms and impacts on the families of drugs addicts and those associated with them. The Government's strategy has been top-down—removing the power from individuals, perceiving all drug addicts as a threat to society, and thus implementing an imbalanced drugs strategy. Addicts matter to the Government as offending reduction statistics, rather than in terms of their impact on the community and those closest to them, often their families. Change is needed, and the Government have not shown any sign of that in this Queen's Speech or previously.
	According to the Government's approach, heroin addicts come into treatment centres, receive their methadone prescription and walk out of the front door again. The vital need to address the causes of their problems and concerns is not being tackled. The holistic approach to problem drug use is not being met. Sustained counselling and after care is needed, which is not part of the strategy.
	As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) have mentioned, prisons are also an issue. The Government are losing the battle against drugs in prisons. It is a scandal that prisoners are suing the Prison Service for being put on drug-withdrawal programmes. My local prison, Pentonville, is overcrowded, lacks detoxification programmes and is now having to hive off prisoners to police stations. What possibility of proper rehabilitation exists there? Drug treatment and testing orders have had £53 million ploughed into them in pursuit of the Government's primary aim to break the link between drug misuse and crime. Evidence suggests, however, that only one in five addicts are reducing offending, with one in nine stopping the use of opiates. Proportionately, young people, who were part of the strategy in the early days, hardly figure in the take-up of DTTOs.
	Yet another drug policy failure is in the area of drug rehabilitation residential referrals. Over the years, referrals to residential units have decreased: 85 per cent. in 2005 and 80 per cent. this year. With pressures on local government social services budgets, many such departments are being forced almost to suspend the residential rehabilitation referral rate. There are limited places available now across the country, and there is a real risk that many will close. The Government seem reluctant to address the funding crisis in residential rehabilitation.
	I want to emphasise my theme in relation to alcohol, relating to which there is a profound failure of Government strategy. There is no effective approach to tackle the alcohol abuse that we are seeing throughout our communities, particularly among young people. Drugs have been the policy attraction for the Government—that is where the funding has gone—but there is evidence of greater harm caused by alcohol abuse. There has been no significant expansion of services to tackle alcohol dependency, which probably affects six times as many people as dependency on illicit drugs.
	As we know, alcohol abuse causes absenteeism and pressure on accident and emergency services. At my local hospital, Chase Farm, great pressure is caused by alcohol-related admissions. Rather than adopting the strategy of closing many accident and emergency hospitals such as Chase Farm, perhaps the Government could at an early stage have adopted an approach to deal with the real problems caused by alcohol-related admissions. Domestic abuse is particularly affected by alcohol addiction, as are children's falling attainment levels, crime and many other problems. I could go on and on.
	Teenage binge drinking has gained particular prominence recently. We see that young people are drinking more and drinking younger. The Government's educational programmes are failing to hit their targets. There is still a culture that suggests that it is acceptable to drink to excess. The Government, however, focus on the criminal justice system and category A drugs rather than on the large number of people, especially young people, who are affected by alcohol and, indeed, cannabis abuse. According to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, the number of people dying from drink-related causes has doubled.
	Government policy is failing to affect the most vulnerable. In her opening speech the Secretary of State mentioned homeless people, but where are the funds to deal with alcohol abuse and homelessness? There is no dedicated funding for the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to provide alcohol rehabilitation services; it is left to primary care trusts and hard-pressed social services departments to pick up the bill. It is hardly surprising that there is little after-care provision for alcohol rehabilitation.
	Finally, I want to say something about the powers in the Greater London authority Bill. When we consider issues of concern in our communities such as drugs and alcohol, we see a missed opportunity, as was pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling). We are not against the principle of devolution or more powers for an elected Mayor, but what is being done to improve the Mayor's strategic role in matters of real concern to people in Enfield, Southgate and, indeed, across London? What about issues such as public health, and drug and alcohol policy? Such issues should be freed from the restrictions of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Abuse, which is often far removed from local communities, and from the expensive, bureaucratic and fixed criminal justice model of the national drugs strategy. Why not give powers of that kind to an elected Mayor?
	What we are left with in the Bill is not based on the principle of devolution—the principle of more powers for the local community. It seems to be based on pleasing the current holder of mayoral office, on hoovering up important policies and guidance on such matters as planning, and on ensuring that we have a Mayor who is pleased by this Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gave one example; I can give another from my constituency. The Mayor was not pleased by Enfield council's decision on an application by Middlesex university to build on green-belt land. Local people opposed it, and the council decided not to allow it in accordance with its unitary development plan. For his own reasons, the Mayor did not like that. Could it be that he wanted authority to make the decision himself under his strategic powers?
	Local people in Enfield, Southgate had said no, and local councillors had said the same. They do not want the Mayor to take their policies away from them. In fact, the Mayor has enough to deal with. He is currently failing to deal with the question of the North Circular road, which involves considerable strategic influence—and if he cannot deal with that, we tremble to think what he would do with the greater strategic powers involved in planning.
	Whether we are talking about the powers of the London Mayor or about drugs and alcohol policy, the Government are clearly out of touch. They are out of touch with the communities of Enfield, Southgate, and out of touch with the people of this country.

Anne Main: I want to touch briefly on the joined-up thinking that we will need if we are going to deliver truly sustainable communities. With approximately 26 million houses in this country and 27.3 per cent. of all carbon emissions coming out of houses and homes, we have to have joined-up thinking in the Government. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not touch on what measures she will put in place to ensure that the Department for Communities and Local Government communicates that vision. The Select Committee that I am on criticised the lack of joined-up thinking between Government Departments. If we are going to get truly sustainable communities, we need to get this absolutely right.
	The number of houses that my constituency is supposed to take is among the highest in the area and we have, apparently, some of the lowest public expenditure in the area, so we must ensure that we get the infrastructure that supports sustainable communities. According to WWF, in St. Albans, we are living in a combined lifestyle sustainable by 3.7 planets. Its "Living Planet" report showed that we were using resources 25 per cent. faster than they can be renewed, yet when the East of England regional assembly chooses not to sign off its local plan because it has been given more houses than it can sustain, it is overruled.
	Our growing deficit in infrastructure is not being met by the Government. I do not believe that the Secretary of State addressed how communities such as mine that are expected to take housing can survive. We have a carbon footprint that is one of the worst in the country, yet we are supposed to take the houses. I look forward to hearing what she will tell me about that.
	I look forward, too, to getting an early funding decision on Thameslink 2000. If we are going to expect people to get out of their cars and into trains, it is no good accepting bids such as the First Capital Connect franchise bid in my constituency, which meant fewer passenger places and increased fares of 84 per cent. We need the transport infrastructure and an early planning decision next year. I hope that we will hear something about that.
	We need positive incentives to have greener houses. The Government are looking at new build, but 96 per cent. of all our housing is old stock. I did not hear anything about the positive incentives that we should have in place to ensure that our old stock is brought up to a environmentally friendly standard. A renewable energy scheme in my constituency has brought a listed building to a zero carbon footprint. It can be done, but where are the carrots for that to happen in our communities? We see plenty of sticks.
	I had hoped that the Government might say something about empowering district councils to be able to look at having a green tariff within their council budget. If, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said, we can make this a cost-benefit for us as a society, the Government should look to help by giving additional funding to councils that encourage greener measures in established housing stock. We are not seeing that. I know we are talking about new build, but I want us to look at bringing up our existing housing to environmentally friendly standards. That will benefit our elderly, particularly if it means that they get reduced council taxes at the same time.
	A huge increase is planned for expansion in the east, but we do not have the resources. The Government have not touched on water resources at all. They must look at that more closely if we are to ensure that we have truly sustainable communities.
	With an estimated 26 million homes, we have to ensure that we are create homes and communities that people want to live in. If we are going to have a better carbon footprint, I will be looking to the Secretary of State to come to my constituency to explain why we have ever increasing air quality management areas and traffic, yet we are not given any tools to deal with that. It is not good enough just imposing that on constituencies and communities such as mine. If the Government want us to take these homes, they should not call us nimbys when we say no, but listen to us and the reason behind that. I am not convinced that there is anything in the Queen's Speech that means that local communities such as mine will have an informed say. We cannot take any more until we are given the infrastructure in advance.
	I want to talk about the planning gain supplement as briefly as I can. I am not convinced that there is anything concrete in the Queen's Speech that will give a firm indication that planning gain supplements will be tied firmly to the communities that suffer the damage or harm caused by the building. That is another tax that can be raised by the Chancellor in his Budget. We have not been given assurances that the harm associated with section 106 development will be fully explored. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) touched on that. We have missed a trick by not fully exploring what we could do with section 106 money and just leaping at another lever that will possibly deliver revenue to the Chancellor to fill holes. That is not what we want in our community when we have an infrastructure deficit.
	The Secretary of State is not taking this seriously enough when she says that it will all be sorted out. The Select Committee that I was on was extremely sceptical and far more work is needed. She should have said more on that in her speech.
	I know that some Members would have wished to have spoken at greater length on certain subjects, but I want to touch on one more point. If we are to look at, for example, how we can have a truly sustainable community, please can we stop having party political politics? I applaud what the hon. Member for Wallasey said about having the Stern report at the forefront of our minds, but it is negative constantly to harp back to the past, to what the Conservatives did or did not do when they were in office. We must all move forward on this issue because it is a one-world issue and I hope that the Secretary of State is looking positively for measures for my constituency, rather than penalising it because my constituents happen to have voted Conservative.

Peter Ainsworth: It is a pleasure—and rather surprising—to be about to deliver my maiden wind-up speech. We have had a marathon debate that was also wide-ranging, sensible and grown up. I am pleased that we had the opportunity to link the issues of the environment and local government, because there is often a silo mentality in the way that we think about matters. Local government has a hugely important role to play in delivering local environmental improvement across the country, and it has been good to have been able to make that connection.
	There were a number of interesting, worthwhile and authoritative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) opened for my party—as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main), who has just spoken, closed for us—by referring to the lack of joined-up government that affects so much in the fields of the environment and local government. She made a powerful speech about the tendency of this Government to go for top-down, centrally imposed solutions, particularly in relation to planning. She said that truly sustainable ways of dealing with environmental matters would be based on local analysis of problems and local need.
	The right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made some sensible comments on climate change. He distinguished between an annual assessment and annual targets, which I might have more to say about shortly, and, importantly, he said that climate change presents opportunities as well as challenges; I do not think that it is possible to repeat that theme often enough.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) criticised the shallowness of the Secretary of State's performance and said that the Conservatives were spot-on about the Government threatening the power of boroughs and districts. No Conservative Member would disagree that analysis.
	As we all know, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has a distinguished record on the environment. He praised the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. It did a superb job; I attended its great event in Trafalgar square. He also touched on climate change targets and stressed that outcomes were more important than targets, but the point about targets is that they can help influence outcomes; the debate about that will undoubtedly continue. He emphasised how important market trading mechanisms will be in the fight against climate change, and I cannot agree with him too much on that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made an authoritative and powerful speech. He wondered whether the energy White Paper of next year, which we are looking forward to, might be changed into a climate change White Paper; that is an interesting idea. He referred to the cutting of funds to the Energy Saving Trust, which seems strange in the context of concern about climate change. He also referred to the powerful case for international agreement in respect of tackling climate change and we all know that the only real and lasting solution to climate change will be at international level. He made another interesting observation when he said that there is an existing technology being developed in the United States—green aviation fuels—and he asked the Secretary of State to explain what we in this country are doing to develop it here. I hope that the Secretary of State will address that.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) also has a long history of service on environmental matters. She made a thoughtful speech, which dealt with climate change. She was the only Member who raised the dreaded spectre of nuclear power—but let us move swiftly on from that. In the latter part of her speech, she made a compelling case, based on her first-hand knowledge, concerning the iniquity and inequity of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It was a moving contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has great knowledge of local government, spoke of the erosion of local independence and mentioned that there have already been four attempts to impose a planning gain supplement on this country, all of which have failed. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made a wide-ranging speech and talked about the importance of skills and training.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) made a very interesting contribution. He spoke of the woeful inadequacy of infrastructure investment in the south-east and said that that threatens the quality of our environment. He referred to the pressures on the health service and the water supply, and to building on floodplains, which is an unsustainable practice. Speaking as someone who also represents a south-east constituency, I know well of what he spoke. He also referred to the extraordinarily wasteful, expensive and unnecessary proposals for local government reorganisation, a subject on which other Members touched.
	The hon. Members for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) both spoke about the climate change Bill. The former said that she was struck by the consensus that now exists on climate change. There really is such a consensus—among non-governmental organisations, Members of this House and economists——and the Stern report is a very important contribution to the wider debate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) took a slightly different view, and I look forward to reading his comments tomorrow.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), who is carving out a reputation as a thoughtful observer of environmental affairs, spoke of flood risk in his constituency and of how intertwined environmental issues are with international development issues. Indeed they are. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who is chair of the all-party group on water, spoke of the importance of oceans, and she was right to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) spoke about London's local government structure with great authority. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) spoke of the importance of infrastructure to accompany investment in house building. It was nice to hear that view coming from the Labour side of the House, for a change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has enormous experience in the Greater London authority and brought that to bear effectively in a well-informed speech about the relative powers of the London assembly and New York city council. He gave us some interesting ideas to take forward.
	The hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) drew on her constituency experience to speak of the importance of decentralising power from Whitehall and regional authorities. Her remarks struck a chord throughout the House.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) spoke about the consensus on climate change and the need for greater devolution and decentralisation, which was a recurring theme of the debate. He memorably said that development in this county is too often fuelled by greed and not by need—a view with which I have much sympathy.
	The hon. Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) clearly has strong views on local government organisation in Bedford. I do not know what his constituents think about those views, but I have a pretty good idea what the Government will make of his criticisms of their policy. However, I am pleased that he emphasised that he is not in favour of compelling local authorities to reorganise. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) spoke movingly and in a very informed way about drug and alcohol abuse, the impact of which blights many local communities across the country, and about the importance of local decision making. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans spoke about the lack of joined-up government.
	This has been a wide-ranging, well-informed and stimulating debate. I want to agree with those such as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe who regretted the absence of a marine Bill in the Queen's Speech. It has been promised several times and was a Labour manifesto commitment at the last election; indeed, we were promised a draft Bill in the last Queen's Speech. Will the Secretary of State give us some idea of the Government's timetable for the introduction of a marine Bill, which will deal with issues that are not easy but none the less very important? The whole House wants to see that.
	The Queen's Speech contained no measures to sort out the unholy mess that the Government have made of the Rural Payments Agency. The House has debated that shambles on several occasions and will no doubt do so again, although I commend our campaign to make them pay by Christmas day, which hon. Members from both sides are entitled to support.
	On the climate change Bill, the only true solution to the problem will be international. If we are to take a lead internationally, we must put our own house in order. It is important that the trajectory of our carbon emissions is falling, not rising. We have been pressing for a climate change Bill for some considerable time and we are as pleased as anyone that the Government have finally conceded the point. I look forward with interest to the details of the Bill. We have, as the Secretary of State knows, our own views about what it should contain and I look forward to hearing what he makes of our proposals.
	We believe that we need a robust system and that the Government should be more accountable than they have been so far. Therefore, we believe that we need an independent commission that not only considers the issue but sets the targets. We want an annual report to Parliament, followed by votes on any measures proposed to address climate change. We believe that we need a long-term target of at least a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050, framework targets to help us on our way and annual targets set on a rolling basis. I know that the Secretary of State has reservations about those proposals and that, if there is a spike in the oil price or the weather changes, it could throw out the targets in any given year. However, that is exactly why we have proposed flexible arrangements —[ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State shouts at me from a sedentary position, but I do not need any lessons on targets from him.
	Does anyone remember the three manifesto commitments that Labour made to cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010? That target was dropped in March. Does anyone remember the 5 per cent. target for energy from renewable sources by 2003? Three years later, we are still at 4 per cent. Does anyone remember the target to improve domestic energy efficiency by 30 per cent.—a target that the Government now deny ever having made in the first place? Does anyone remember the commitment to shift tax from environmental goods to environmental bads? The proportion of green taxes as a percentage of the total has fallen since 1997, not risen. The Government have also failed to meet targets for making payments under the rural payments schemes.
	The Government set a dramatic target of 0.3 per cent. of all our fuel coming from biofuels, which is below the EU target of 2 per cent. The actual turnout was 0.24 per cent., so we do not need lessons in targets. The reason we want annual targets on climate change is that it is much too important an issue to continue with the fudge and failure of Labour's approach to targets. We want independent targets, independently monitored and set annually, on a rolling basis, so that they can be revised in the light of changing circumstances.

David Miliband: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall return to that in a few moments.
	Secondly, the Bill will establish an independent body, the carbon committee, to work with the Government to reduce emissions over time. It will create enabling powers to put in place new emissions reduction measures and it will improve monitoring and reporting arrangements—including how the Government report to Parliament.
	It is important for the House to remember that, as a result of the Bill introduced last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), we already have a commitment to annual reporting and debate in legislation. We do not support binding annual targets. That was the difference between us and the Opposition when I left for Nairobi. I have with me a Bill published by the Conservative party on 25 October and part 3 refers to "binding annual targets". However, something seems to have moved on while I was away. In the new Bill, re-presented last week, on 14 November, part 3 is now about the responsibility of the commission to set targets.
	In addition to the four different Conservative positions cited by the Prime Minister last week, I can also advise the House on the contents of the Conservative research department's briefing on the Queen's Speech. On the subject of binding annual targets, it says— [Interruption.] Conservative Front Benchers would do better to listen to what I am saying. Mr. Speaker will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he is well occupied at the moment.
	The Conservative research department document starts by saying that year-on-year targets are essential to reduce emissions. It goes on to say, in respect of annual targets, that it does not expect the Government to meet them precisely each year. Instead, it proposes rolling targets. Mr. Speaker, the binding commitments are, in fact, "rolling" and the targets are changed annually, not hit annually— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Surrey, who speaks for the Conservative party on the issue, is passionate and knowledgeable. He knows the difference and I think that he must have blanched when he tried to explain on the "Today" programme last week how he could at the same time be in favour of both binding targets and rolling ones.

David Miliband: I can tell him very clearly that carbon emissions have risen by 1.5 per cent. and that greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 7 per cent. while the economy has grown by 25 per cent. For the first time in our industrial history— [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like hearing it, but it is true. For the first time in our history, our economy has grown by 25 per cent. and our greenhouse emissions have fallen by 7 per cent. The Government have broken the link between carbon and economic growth.
	The Government's climate change Bill will provide businesses and citizens, as well as Governments, with a clear framework for future action. The Gracious Speech is driven by the values of the Government and by the country's needs. Those values are vital in the battle against climate change. Social justice is vital because the value of a life in Nairobi is of no less value than a life in Nottingham. Internationalism is vital because we know that global problems need global solutions. Solidarity is vital because we have duties to others apart from ourselves. We also have a commitment to empowerment because the Government need the vitality of business and the strength of individuals if they are to achieve change.
	I look forward to further debate in the month ahead. Above all, I look forward to further action on the basis of the Queen's Speech.
	Debate adjourned.— [Steve McCabe.]
	 Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 21 November.

Bob Spink: I am delighted to have such a good Minister on the Treasury Bench to reply to the debate and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to defend my constituents from a proposal for a liquefied natural gas—LNG—plant on Canvey Island, which puts them at what I believe to be increased and unacceptable risk.
	The Canvey gas terminal has been operational since 1964. It was the first such terminal in the world. Calor now operates the site and, with several partners, has submitted a plan to import, store and transfer LNG amounting to 5 per cent. of total UK gas needs. That would be offloaded by boom arm on a new jetty from ships in the Thames. The plans involve storing more than 100,000 tonnes of LNG in two huge tanks, which have yet to be built and are each more than 130 ft high. Plans have also been submitted to lay a new high capacity natural gas pipeline from Canvey to Stanford-le-Hope.
	I will explain that the Calor plan will bring a significant increased risk, not just for Canvey people, but for the mainland. I will call for an urgent public inquiry and for that inquiry to be held in our community on Canvey. We must not see our island's future decided off the island, as happens with so many other issues. Canvey is a strong, close-knit, warm and friendly community of more than 40,000 people. We love our beautiful island, but we have serious longstanding issues that must be resolved, whether or not the LNG proposals go ahead. The island is in part below sea level, protected by a sea wall that needs careful review in the light of changing sea levels and climate change. I have been pushing for that to be completed as quickly as possible. We will never forget the 58 people on Canvey Island who died in the 1953 floods. The site of the proposed LNG plant is susceptible to flooding. It is below sea level, protected by our sea wall. The Environment Agency has tellingly ruled that the site for LNG does not comply with Government guidance on flood protection.
	Another major problem is our lack of infrastructure. We need an additional access road for Canvey Island—you have heard me say that many times, Mr. Speaker. It needs to come from a separate point in the Northwick area. At the moment, we have just a single strategic access point at the Waterside Farm roundabout. We need the improved access for environmental and economic reasons, but mostly for important safety reasons. If we ever needed to evacuate the island, we would be in deep trouble. The gas plant proposal exacerbates that problem.
	Over the months to come, we will hear evidence on the LNG plans from many experts such as the Health and Safety Executive, and various statutory bodies and external consultants. Let me put their evidence into a chilling, but relevant context. The Buncefield oil storage and transfer depot in Hemel Hempstead was said to be entirely safe and was heavily controlled by the various authorities, but as we know, on 11 December last year, there were explosions and fires at the site—the biggest fires in Europe since world war two. I will show that a similar catastrophe with LNG could make Buncefield look like a village bonfire-night party.
	Let me paint a realistic picture of the risk that we face. An escape of LNG would freeze everything in its path. The HSE confirms that there is no way to control such an LNG spill. At atmospheric pressure, LNG would vaporise to form a massive and growing cloud. That cloud would float or blow around in the wind, mixing with air to form an unstable and combustible mixture. Eventually, it would ignite and flash into a high temperature fire. It would then burn and set alight everything in its path, destroying whoever and whatever stood in its way. One estimate has put a 10-mile radius as the danger area. That draws in Basildon; Thurrock; Southend, West; Rayleigh and even Kent.
	I have met the fire service and it confirms that there would be no way to fight or to control a vapour cloud moving in the air in whatever direction the wind was blowing that day or night and at whatever speed. That would be quite indeterminate beforehand and the effects would be quite indiscriminate. Unlike Buncefield, where the emergency services could use foam and other tactics to control and contain the fires, there is no firefighting plan for such an LNG incident in this country. It would be a question of watching and following the fire and going in to clear up any carnage after the fire had burned out. The ignition may be on Canvey Island, but it may be on the mainland in Castle Point or one of the surrounding constituencies. This is not just a Canvey issue.
	For the sceptical, there is ample evidence of major LNG fire incidents—for instance, in the USA. As a result of their experience, no such plant is allowed in America within miles of residential homes. An American documentary film, "The Risks and Dangers of LNG" by Tim Riley, covers many aspects of the dangers of LNG, including the history of accidents, the environmental impact, spills and vapour clouds, and the terrorist implications in relation to LNG tanks, tankers and pipelines. In 2003, the Oxnard city council, California, did a study that predicated up to 70,000 casualties from a LNG accident. That brings me on to the key issue for Canvey. The Calor LNG proposal would be sited within just a few hundred yards of homes and schools. That would be entirely unacceptable—hence the reason I applied for the debate.
	Following the planning refusal in September, the Canvey LNG partners say that they will certainly appeal. I expect the appeal to be submitted to the Secretary of State in February. For balance, Calor wishes me to put it on record that the HSE has not yet completed its formal assessment. Its conclusions are expected by the end of December. The Canvey LNG partners still think that their plans would not increase the risks for Canvey, based on the technical information that they have received from the external consultants whom they commissioned. However, they openly say that that does not mean that they are removing the risks from Canvey entirely, because risk results from the existence of liquefied petroleum gas operations. They admit that there is no such thing as a totally safe LPG or LNG operation. They state that many industry experts believe that LPG carries more risks than LNG. No doubt we will debate that in the future, but it does not address the massive increase in volume that would be involved on Canvey.
	Calor claims that the proposals would led to about 40 to 50 long-term operational jobs, but in truth, I can think of few direct local benefits that would come from them. Calor also refers to the safe operation of the plant over many years, which I entirely accept, but the Buncefield operators would have made a similar assertion right up to the day before last year's fire. The House has heard before that I have asked the HSE to look again at the operation and testing of the early-spill warning alarms for Calor's existing operations, in an attempt to get maximum safety for my constituents.
	Every one of the authorities thought that Buncefield was safe, but it was not. A key consideration now is that some of the authorities think that the Canvey site is not sufficiently safe to merit approval for the LNG plans, which brings me on to the views of the various authorities. The Environment Agency has objected due to the flood risk at the site, as I said earlier. We also need further investigations of the possible contamination of land on the site. I understand that Essex county council now objects to the proposal, and I am grateful for its support. However, the Port of London Authority has approved the site jetty works and says that it is minded to approve the river works. The associated pipeline application is progressing and I expect it to go before the local council in early December. I most strongly urge councillors to reject the application on environmental grounds and owing to its impact on wildlife, among many other reasons, including the terrorist threat.
	Meanwhile, Calor has engaged specialist consultants to prepare a marine risk assessment for the shipping movements, which brings me on to another related issue. I refer the Minister to the Thames Gateway port development, which will entail 32 million tonnes of aggregate being cut from the estuary to make a deep channel right across the front of Canvey's sea defence wall and the Calor operation. That will also bring massive extra shipping movements across the sensitive gas plant site. As we saw at the time of the New Orleans disaster, sea defences that are built on sand or earth can be washed away in seconds by extreme weather events. Extreme weather events are coming more frequently and becoming more extreme with every year that passes, as we heard in the previous debate.
	Of course, the sand and gravel on which Canvey's sea defences are built are likely to be made less stable by the massive quarter-mile-wide and very deep dredging across the front of the sea wall that is required by the Thames Gateway port development. Land slip is already a serious problem along the banks of the Thames estuary, even without the new deep-cut channel running right along it. This is not rocket science, and it is why even before the LNG proposals were known about, I gave 25 pages of evidence against the new Thames Gateway port and dredging plans. Sadly, Castle Point borough council failed to give any evidence at all to that inquiry to protect residents and our environment.
	Another important consideration is terrorism. Installations surrounding the Canvey site suffered a terrorist attack when a bomb was planted early one night in the early 1980s. With sea, land and air approaches all available, and given the volatility of 100,000 tonnes of LNG in such proximity to homes and schools, the additional security requirement would be onerous and costly.
	There must be alternative sites in the UK that are better protected than the site on Canvey Island. We all know of the current terrorist threat, but it would not be appropriate for me to go into ongoing security issues too deeply tonight; I simply reassure local people that I am on the case. Let me quote Osama bin Laden after 9/11:
	"We are in love with death. The West is in love with life. That is the difference between us."
	I pay warm tribute to everyone who has helped People Against Methane, which is chaired by George Whatley and led by Irene Willis, Peter Jolly, Bill Deal, Roy Kimpton, Chris Ball, Chris McLaughlin, Nicola Marshall and Bob Gregory. They are all non-political, and they are all stars. I am working closely with PAM on a referendum and on a strong campaign, which includes visits to Westminster and to No.10 Downing street, but I do not want to give away too much about our tactics.
	I wish to congratulate other stars, including Castle Point borough council planning officers, led by Ian Burchill, who put together a superb case to reject the application, and who are dealing very professionally with the complex measures involved. I pay tribute, too, to Dave Blackwell and his team of Canvey Island Independent party councillors, who have collected a huge petition. It is the biggest ever for Canvey Island, amounting to many thousands of signatures, and it has helped enormously. I thank all councillors who have supported us in various ways, some speaking out against the plan and some voting down the first application. They all made valuable contributions to our initial fight.
	I am sorry that the local fight against the gas plant was damaged by ill advised and counter-productive attempts to politicise the campaign to stop the LNG plant. In particular, attacks on the Canvey Island Independent party were out of order. Councillors should not fight each other, or criticise decent, local people who are working for their community. Canvey people are shrewd, and they will not be taken in by such bad behaviour, or by the foolish and improper assertions of council bosses who have yet to learn to keep out of politics and focus on serving the people. The fight against the plans for a LNG plant should, from now on, be a matter on which councillors and senior council officers put politics aside and work together with all of us for the public good.
	Let me give a sample of comments from Canvey people. Heather Wilkins said:
	"I am just fed up of Canvey being used as a dumping ground".
	A caring grandmother, Sheree Lee, said:
	"I'm concerned about the safety of people on the Island. And if there was a problem, how could we evacuate the Island?"
	Canvey youths, Chris Cork, Paul Miller, Stuart Willson and Dave Burt said:
	"Canvey young people care and recognise that we don't want this terminal".
	A constituent, NW, e-mailed me today:
	"I thank you for the work you are doing but...there is no guarantee to the safety of Canvey Island and Benfleet."
	He was referring to my attempt to reassure local people, and prevent Canvey from being blighted, by saying that an accident was very unlikely—and I still believe that to be true. He continues:
	"These proposed terminals are too close to the mass population and, as you stated, an explosion would be an absolutely horrendous occurrence...all political parties must be involved as one unit of solidarity to fight against these proposals. I believe you truly to be an honest MP but Councillors"—
	and he identifies the political party involved—
	"still have a lot to learn about the democratic process and to stop treating the people of Canvey Island with contempt."
	He expresses views that are widely held on Canvey Island, and which politicians ignore at their peril.
	I must balance all the arguments on important issues such as flood defences, infrastructure and development. I cannot please everyone all the time—no MP can—but I work hard for my patch, and I do so independently of the various, and sometimes sinister, vested interests and political pressures that have operated in Castle Point for many years—hence the instability of the local council. People have come to know me over the years, and they trust me to do my job with absolute integrity. PAM and I will show that there is an overwhelming safety case on which to reject the LNG plans. In addition, there is clear evidence of the existence of safer and better alternative sites across the UK, and that deals with the "national interest" argument.
	I respectfully ask the Minister for Science and Innovation, a caring man who is a good listener and an understanding guy, to ensure that the Government call in any possible appeal and hold a public inquiry with the minimum possible delay, to reduce blight and uncertainty for my constituents. I would urge that that inquiry be held on Canvey Island.
	Could the Minister please write to me to confirm that under the LNG proposals the Canvey site would become one of six UK top tier COMAH—control of major accident hazard—sites? Will he acknowledge that there is currently no Government policy on the location of such sites? Will he also comment in that letter on the proposition of George Whatley of PAM that in the absence of such a policy, no inspector could possibly allow an appeal for a new COMAH site? Will the Minister acknowledge in his letter that the Canvey site would put two of the UK's top six COMAH sites within a few miles of each other, since the Isle of Grain just across the Thames is only a few miles away and is also one of the UK's top COMAH sites? Will he confirm that Buncefield was only a low tier COMAH site? How scary is that!
	My aim is to allow my constituents to feel safer in their beds and to know that their children are safer in their schools. I will therefore do all I can to ensure that the Canvey LNG application is refused. The human and environmental consequences are totally unacceptable.